Legal Opinion · Dissent

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Weiner

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 24, 1981No. Appeal, No. 1549 C.D. 1980Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish:

This issue simply turns on a Semantic difference. Is the term “no” synonymic with the phrase “express objection” as written in Section 18(a) of the Pennsylvania Urban Mass Transportation Law, Act of July 10, 1980, P.L. 427, as amended, 66 P.S. §1971.319(a). I expressed my opinion following the special panel, hearing Weiner v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 56 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 97, 418 A.2d 776 (1980). Now, I must register opposition.

The majority would have us argue that an “express objection” for “veto” purposes requires…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stoltz v. McConnonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. STOLTZ v. McCONNONCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Weiner v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API