Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Fry

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 2015Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge LEAVITT.

Respectfully, I dissent. I agree that In re Hunter, 782 A.2d 610 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001), should be overruled because there is no “needs test” in the statutory provision governing the appointment and eligibility of deputy constables, 44 Pa.C.S. § 7122. However, substituting a “suitability test for the former “needs test” suffers from the same lack of foundation in 44 Pa.C.S. § 7122. I also believe that the majority prematurely decides the issue of Fry’s eligibility for the position of deputy constable based upon allegations that he is no longer *1112a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fonner v. Shandon, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. In re Appointment of HunterCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API