Legal Opinion

Tritt v. Cortes

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 22, 2004No. 274 MAP 2003PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice SAYLOR.

This direct appeal requires that we consider the scope of the notary public education requirement.

On December 9, 2002, the General Assembly substantially revised the Notary Public Law,1 per the Act of December 9, 2002, P.L. 1269, No. 151, effective July 1, 2003. As part of the amendments, the provision governing the requirements for becoming a notary public was altered, inter alia, to impose an educational requirement as follows:(c) As a condition for the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s issuance of a notary commission to an applicant not appointed to the office of notary…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. EnglishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Coady v. VaughnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Commonwealth v. Gilmour Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Tritt v. CortesCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. McCoySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Gilbert, R. v. Synagro Central ApltsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Pennsylvania Department of Banking v. NCAS of Delaware, LLC.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. In re McKinneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

24 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