Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HONORABLE RAYMOND PACE ALEXANDER AND HONORABLE ROBERT V. BOLGER AND HONORABLE PETER F. HAGAN ON BEHALF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. HONORABLE A. EVANS KEPHART (11/02/73)

decided: November 2, 1973.

THE HONORABLE RAYMOND PACE ALEXANDER AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT V. BOLGER AND THE HONORABLE PETER F. HAGAN ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE HONORABLE A. EVANS KEPHART, COURT ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE HONORABLE GRACE M. SLOAN, TREASURER OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEFENDANTS



Original jurisdiction in case of The Honorable Raymond Pace Alexander, The Honorable Robert V. Bolger and The Honorable Peter F. Hagan on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. The Honorable A. Evans Kephart, Court Administrator, and The Honorable Grace M. Sloan, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

COUNSEL

Marvin Comisky, with him Alan C. Gershenson and, of counsel, Blank, Rome, Klaus & Comisky, for plaintiffs.

Melvin R. Shuster, Deputy Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for defendants.

Isidor Ostroff, with him Ostroff & Lawler, for amicus curiae, Philadelphia Bar Association.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 560]

Plaintiffs are three Retired Judges of the Courts of the Commonwealth who have brought the present action pursuant to Rule 2230 Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure as members of the class of Retired Judges "called back to perform duties" on behalf of themselves and all other such Retired Judges in the Commonwealth.*fn1

The Act of June 16, 1971, P.L. 157, No. 8, as amended, 46 P.S. ยง 6, created the Commonwealth Compensation Commission (Commission) and provided that the

[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 561]

Commission ". . . shall make an exhaustive study of the salaries, emoluments, retirement benefits, mileage, per diem, travel and other expense allowances and reimbursements . . ."*fn2 for stated members of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the Government. The Act further provided that after the study the Commission should submit a report on these matters, and that this initial report would become effective immediately upon its submission unless, within sixty days thereafter, the General Assembly rejected the report, in whole or in part.

Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission filed its initial report establishing increases in salary for those serving in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the Commonwealth.

While the report listed in column form (A) the Annual Salary and (B) the Retirement Base for individual officeholders in the three respective branches of government, for "Retired Judges" it merely stated: "Retired Judges called back to perform duties . . . $125 per court day."

On August 15, 1972, the General Assembly passed Senate Resolution No. 100, which rejected the Commission's Report: "To the Extent that it Provides an Increase in Salary greater than $2,500 for any Member of the Executive or Judicial Branch of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.