Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Stilp v. COM., GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 27, 2007No. 76 and 80 MAP 2006Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION

Justice SAYLOR.

While I agree with the majority that the current or future Auditor General is, or will be, in a better position to pursue the specific declaratory relief sought by Appellant in this case, see Majority Opinion, at 74-75, 940 A.2d at 1234, I nonetheless hold a broader view of citizen-taxpayer standing than that expressed by my colleagues. In this regard, the majority is correct that this Court’s opinion in Application of Biester, 487 Pa. 438, 409 A.2d 848 (1979), has been interpreted as setting forth a five-part, conjunctive test for establishing whether…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Costopoulos v. ThornburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Faden v. Philadelphia Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. Stilp v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API