Legal Opinion

CITY COUN. OF BETHLEHEM v. Marcincin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 3, 1986No. 31 E.D. Appeal Docket 1986PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*4OPINION

NIX, Chief Justice.

The point of dispute in this appeal is the compatibility of the Third Class City Code (“the Code”)1 and Third Class City Charter Law (“the Charter Law”) (Act of July 15, 1957, P.L. 901, § 101, 53 P.S. § 41101 et seq. (Supp.1986)) with City of Bethlehem Ordinance 2389 (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Ordinance 2389 (Oct. 18, 1973)). Pursuant to that ordinance, an incumbent mayor can seek only one term of reelection. We conclude, for the reasons that follow, that a reasonable limitation on the mayoral term of office is in harmony with the scope of authority granted to third…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. StanleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Harris-Walsh, Inc. v. Dickson City BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Winston v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  5. United Tavern Owners v. Philadelphia School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. League of Women Voters of PA v. CmwlthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. Nutter v. DoughertySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. In re 1991 Pennsylvania Legislative Reapportionment CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Erfer v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

23 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