Legal Opinion

Stilp v. Hafer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 1998No. 169 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIGRO, Justice.

This case presents the novel issue of whether a claim that a statute was enacted in violation of the procedures set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution may be barred by laches. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that laches may apply and we affirm the Commonwealth Court’s decision that Appellants’ challenge to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act, eight years after its enactment, is barred.

Appellants Gene Stilp, Eric Epstein and Thomas Linzey, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in mandamus in Commonwealth Court requesting injunctive and declaratory…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Philadelphia School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Sprague v. CaseySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. MATTER OF SCHULZ v. StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. Sears v. Treasurer & Receiver GeneralMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
  5. Commonwealth v. GilliganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Kern v. KernSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Rentschler v. NixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 2010
  3. In Re IuloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Fulton v. FultonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Cole v. State Ex Rel. BrownMontana Supreme Court · 2002

38 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