Legal Opinion

Wagaman v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 12, 2005PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Senior Judge KELLEY.

Presently before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary objections of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth Pennsylvania to the “Civil Class Action”, which we will refer to as a “petition for review”, filed, pro se, by Jeffrey Wagaman, Joseph Gensemer, Melvin Schwartz, Darren Taylor, and Jay Yunik (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Petitioners”), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated Pennsylvania inmates and those released subject to the provisions of what is commonly referred to as “Megan’s Law II.” 42 Pa.C.S. §§…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Meier v. MaleskiCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Pennsylvania School Boards Ass'n v. Commonwealth Ass'n of School Administrators, Teamsters Local 502Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Inc. v. Commonwealth Association of School AdministratorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Unified Sportsmen v. Pennsylvania Game CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Doe v. MillerCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Pratter v. Penn Treaty American Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Dunbar v. Pennsylvania State PoliceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. B. Key v. PA DOCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2024

2 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