Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth ex rel. Specter v. Martin

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 3, 1967No. Appeal, No. 339Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice Bell:

Quo warranto is the proper remedy in this case and Specter’s opponent has a standing to bring such a suit, even if the Attorney General of Pennsylvania or any other appropriate Public authority will not. In Mayer v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 1, 190 A. 2d 444, the Court said (page 6) : “The general rule is well settled that quo warranto is the sole and exclusive remedy to try title or right to office, whether the right which is challenged is that of a de jure or a de facto officer. It is likewise part of the general rule that quo warranto can be brought only…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Lennox v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Knisely v. CotterelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
  3. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Schermer v. FranekSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Mayer v. HemphillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Schultz v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

22 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