Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fox v. Swing

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 28, 1962No. Appeal, 229Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen:

By tbe majority’s bolding, it is now established that by Article XII, §2 of tbe Constitution “Tbe General Assembly may by law declare what offices are incompatible” tbe courts of tbis Commonwealth are deprived of their common-law jurisdiction to determine questions of incompatibility. I cannot conceive that as tbe import of tbe constitutional provision. Surely, it was not tbe intention of tbe Constitutional Convention to deprive tbe courts of their common-law jurisdiction.

Tbe problem of plural office bolding is not new. In England as early as in tbe…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Reilly v. OzzardSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
  2. Commonwealth Ex Rel. McCreary v. MajorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Greene County v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Central Lithograph Co. v. Eatmor Chocolate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Schermer v. FranekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

10 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