Legal Opinion
Stilp v. COM., GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided July 20, 2009No. 81 MAP 2007PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice TODD.
In this appeal, Appellant Gene Stilp (“Stilp”), acting pro se, asks us to adopt an absolutist view of our Pennsylvania Constitution that would erase over 125 years of case law in his challenge of the receipt of various matters of value received by members of the General Assembly. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the orders of the Commonwealth Court dismissing Stilp’s Amended Petition for Review (“Amended Petition”).
By way of background, on January 3, 2006, Stilp filed a Petition for Review under the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. Respondents…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Firing v. KephartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Insurance Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Stilp v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Phantom Fireworks Showrooms, LLC v. Tom Wolf, Governor of the Comwlth of PACommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Richardson v. WetzelCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- M.J. Brouillette v. T. Wolf, GovernorCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- Piehl v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- MCT Transportation Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.