Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re Petition for Appointment of Constable Pender

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 15, 2011No. 1654 C.D. 2010Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION BY

Senior Judge FEUDALE.

I concur in the result reached by the majority, but write separately to explain why the trial court’s action was not an abuse of discretion. The majority opinion notes that selecting a “suitable” candidate for the Constable vacancy “could best be described as a job interview where the trial court could pick one suitable candidate over another or, absent finding one suitable, none at all.” In re Petition for Appointment of Constable Bernard E. Pender for the 2nd Ward of Allentown, 25 A.3d 453, 455 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011). After a careful review of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Commonwealth v. EichingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Commonwealth v. DodgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. In re Act 147 of 1990Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

2 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