Legal Opinion

Meixell v. Hellertown Borough Council

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 1952No. Appeal, 73PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell,

The court below sustained defendant’s preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint in mandamus and dismissed the complaint. From this order plaintiff has appealed.

Where those present and validly voting are sufficient to constitute a quorum, does the vote of a majority of those ballots which have been validly cast, legally bind the Council?

The Borough Council of Hellertown, consisting of 9 members, met to elect a Burgess.* A Burgess receives a salary of $400 a year; a Councilman receives $10 for each regular monthly meeting he attends, a maximum of $120 a year.…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. United States v. BallinSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Buell v. Buckingham & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1864
  3. Genkinger v. New CastleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. Commonwealth Ex Rel. McCreary v. MajorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. Rushville Gas Co. v. City of RushvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Eways v. Reading Parking AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. McAdoo Borough v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. City of Alamo Heights v. GeretyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954
  4. DiGiacinto v. City of AllentownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Stoltz v. McConnonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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