Legal Opinion · Dissent

Abraham v. Shapp

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 3, 1979No. 1 E.D. Misc. DktPublished

1DissentNix, Justice

Under the scheme of retention elections, the timely filing of the declarations for candidacy for retention not only triggers the right of the judge to have his name placed upon the ballot in the general election, but it also removes that office as an office to be filled by the regular election process. Of particular significance to the present inquiry, the filing of a valid declaration forecloses the right to seek the position by filing nominations petitions or papers to other aspirants for the office. Conversely, if a valid declaration for candidacy is not timely filed, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Winston v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  2. Thompson v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. SempleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Patterson v. BarlowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
  5. Socialist Labor CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

3 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