Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Stilp v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 3, 2007Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Senior Judge KELLEY.

Unlike the Majority, I believe that Respondents’ preliminary objections should be overruled. Section 1401 of the County Code1 provides, in pertinent part, that *713“[t]he Commonwealth shall annually reimburse each county with a full-time district attorney an amount equal to sixty-five percent of the district attorney’s salary.” 16 P.S. § 1401(p). As a result, I believe that Stilp possesses standing to prosecute the instant matter as a taxpayer of this Commonwealth. See, e.g., Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 116…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Zemprelli v. DanielsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. League of Women Voters v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

1 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