Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Lawrence H. Baumiller
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Friday, February 21, 2014, denied an Application for Reargument or Reconsideration filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the Act 13 decision [enhanced opinion available to lexis.com subscribers]. The December 19, 2013 Opinion and Order of the Supreme Court will stand. However, in a dissenting statement, Justice Saylor wrote that, “I am fully in line with the position that ‘[f]undamental fairness to a co-equal branch of government, as well as adherence to this Court’s precedent and established procedure, mandates that the [Commonwealth parties] be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence before any judicial proclamation is made about whether Act 13 satisfies the newly-mandated balancing test under Section 27′ of Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution. . . . The judiciary simply does not possess the ability to divine the consequences of a legislative enactment absent a developed factual record.”
Copyright 2014 • Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. • Two Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 • 412-394-5400 • Administrative Watch is privately distributed by Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., for the general information of its clients, friends and readers. It is not designed to be, nor should it be considered or used as, the sole source of analyzing and resolving legal problems. If you have, or think you may have, a legal problem or issue relating to any of the matters discussed in the Administrative Watch, consult legal counsel.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.