Legal Opinion
In Re Rodriguez
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided September 24, 2003No. 157 MAP 2002PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JUSTICE LAMB.
In this case, we address the issue of whether the General Assembly intended Section 1 of the Act of March 20, 1929, P.L. 32, No. 32, 13 P.S. § 11, to abrogate the common-law rule that to hold the office of constable one must be a resident of the district in which he or she serves. For the following reasons we hold that it did not and affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.
13 P.S. § 11 states:
Whenever a vacancy may occur in the office of constable in any borough, town, ward of any city, borough, or town or township in said Commonwealth by reason of failure to elect,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. HigginbothamSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and GriggSupreme Court of the United States · 1834
- Commonwealth v. NesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Rahn v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Dittman, B., Aplt. v. UPMCSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Scungio Borst v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Public Utility CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.