Gen. Motors, LLC v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
JUSTICE MUNDY, Concurring and Dissenting
I join Section II of the well-reasoned Majority Opinion finding that the surcharge General Motors imposed in this case is not permissible pursuant to Section 9(b.4) of the Board of Vehicles Act. I write separately, however, to note my disagreement with Section I of the Majority Opinion. Because I conclude that the Majority's construction in Section 1 of the Board of Vehicles Act (the Act), 63 P.S. §§ 818.1 - 818.37, is antithetical to its stated purpose and undercuts the mandatory language utilized in the Act, I respectfully dissent.
When faced with…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Commonwealth v. ShifflerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Commonwealth v. BradleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Coretsky v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.