Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ario v. Reliance Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 2009No. 3 MAP 2008Published

1ConcurrenceChief Justice Castille

I concur in the result. I join Mr. Justice Saylor’s Concurring Opinion respecting the first issue presented. I write separately only to express my view of the jurisprudential *507stability and uniformity concerns implicated in Part II.B of the Majority Opinion. See Majority Op. at 504-06, 980 A.2d at 596-97.1

The Commissioner argues that under either stare decisis, the law of the case doctrine, or the coordinate jurisdiction rule, the Commonwealth Court’s disposition is erroneous because it does not conform to two of that court’s 2005, single-judge adjudications in the Empire and Factory Mutual…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. StarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Stilp v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Koken v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Commonwealth v. PerrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

7 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