Legal Opinion

Ritenour v. Peirce

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 2, 1971No. Appeal, 71PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Pomeroy,

The Constitution of Pennsylvania, as last amended in 1968, provides that county officers (in counties other than Philadelphia) shall consist, inter alia, of prothonotaries and “clerks of the courts”. Article IX, $ec. 4. By Section 15 of the Schedule of Article Y, these two offices were defined, until otherwise provided by law, as “the offices of prothonotary and clerk of courts of the court of common pleas of the judicial district. . . .” The case before us is a dispute as to whether under the new Constitution Robert N. Peirce, Jr., appellee, is the legally…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth ex rel. Lafean v. SnyderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  2. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Matthews v. LomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas JudgesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  2. Frame v. SutherlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. STROUP v. KapleauSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Stroup v. McNairCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Frame v. SutherlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

6 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