Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gen. Motors, LLC v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 17, 2019No. 24 MAP 2018Published

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

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Commonwealth v. ShifflerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Commonwealth v. BradleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Coretsky v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

8 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