Fumo v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentFlaherty, Judge
I respectfully dissent. Since the decision of our Supreme Court in Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 510 Pa. 158, 507 A.2d 323 (1986), the Enrolled Bill Doctrine has lost its vitality in barring a court from examining whether the procedures of the legislature in enacting legislation comport with the provisions of the Constitution of this Commonwealth, as illustrated by the analysis of that case, as well as by subsequent cases which this court has decided. Because the Enrolled Bill doctrine has lost its vitality and the Majority purportedly applies this doctrine…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- School Districts of Deer Lakes & Allegheny Valley v. KaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Kilgore v. MageeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Mikell v. Philadelphia School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.