Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Fry

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 2015Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge McCULLOUGH.

I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that In re Hunter, 782 A.2d 610 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001), requiring a constable to show need in order to appoint a deputy under 44 Pa.C.S. § 7122, should be overruled. I write separately to address the remaining issues decided in the Majority’s opinion.

While the Majority recognizes the absence of authority for a “needs test,” I join the reasoning in the dissenting and concurring opinion authored by Judge Leavitt and believe that the Majority’s crafting of a “suitability” test similarly imposes a burden of proof…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. South Whitehall Township Police Service v. South Whitehall TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Hospital & Healthsystem Ass'n v. Department of Public WelfareSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. In re Act 147 of 1990Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Commonwealth v. DiPasqualeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967

6 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