Legal Opinion

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Bagnoni v. Klemm

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 31, 1982No. 16 Western District Appeal Docket 1982PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUTCHINSON, Justice.

Resolution of this case turns solely upon a question of statutory construction: viz. whether an Act of Assembly which requires “a vote of two-thirds of the members” to override the Mayor’s veto means two-thirds of the entire body or two-thirds of the members present. We hold that in the context of section 413(a) the Optional Third Class City Charter Law (Article IV, Mayor-Council Plan A), Act of July *56815, 1957, P.L. 901, as amended, 53 P.S. § 41413(a), the quoted expression means two-thirds of the entire body. We therefore reverse the Commonwealth Court, 61 Pa.Cmwlth.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BarnettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  2. Commonwealth v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Meixell v. Hellertown Borough CouncilSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  4. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fortney v. WozneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Munce v. O'HaraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Seda-Cog Joint Rail Authority v. Carload Express, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. Borough v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Bagnoni v. KlemmSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Hodge v. HodgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Hodge v. HodgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API