County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentNix, Chief Justice
The majority relies upon a non-existent constitutional mandate, which they justify by the fiction of an insolubly disruptive relationship between county government and the court system, to intrude upon the province of an equal branch of government and thereby offend a doctrine that this Court has consistently held to be sacrosanct. See, e.g., Young v. Commonwealth, Board of Probation and Parole, 487 Pa. 428, 409 A.2d 843 (1979); In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d 444 (1978); Commonwealth *77v. Sutley, 474 Pa. 256, 378 A.2d 780 (1977); Sweeney v. Tucker, 473 Pa. 493, 375 A.2d 698…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Wilson v. Philadelphia School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- COM. Ex Rel. CARROLL v. TATESupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Sweeney v. TuckerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Young v. Com. Bd. of Probation and ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. TateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.