Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mezvinsky v. Davis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 26, 1983No. 3 M.D. Misc. Dkt. 1983Published

1DissentRoberts, Chief Justice

By arbitrarily discarding recent precedent and substituting its judgment for the considered judgment of the Legislature, the majority “bring[s] adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and this train only.” Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 669, 64 S.Ct. 757, 766, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944) (Roberts, J., dissenting). I must dissent.

An enactment of the Legislature may not be declared unconstitutional “unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.” Tosto v. Pennsylvania Nursing Home Loan Agency, 460 Pa. 1, 16, 331 A.2d…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Smith v. AllwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Daly v. HemphillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. Tosto v. Pennsylvania Nursing Home Loan AgencySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Orloski v. DavisDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Thiemann v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API