In Re Nomination Petition of Valenty
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentChief Justice Castille
The Court dismisses this appeal as moot, noting the candidate’s retirement from his elected position and his lack of interest in pursuing this litigation. I respectfully dissent. In my view, this case is appropriate for decision pursuant to the well-accepted exception to the mootness doctrine by which we decide matters capable of repetition that may escape review. For the following reasons, I would decide this appeal now, and in favor of appellants, and reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court panel below.
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Pennsylvania charter does not require…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Randall v. SorrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Stilp v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Rendell v. Pennsylvania State Ethics CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Western Pennsylvania Socialist Workers 1982 Campaign v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.