Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

NOMINATION PETITION C. DAVID HENRY (03/24/76)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: March 24, 1976.

IN RE NOMINATION PETITION OF C. DAVID HENRY, A/K/A CHARLES DAVID HENRY, DAVID HENRY, DAVID C. HENRY, FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION FOR OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE 202ND REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT. APPEAL OF MARK B. COHEN

Appeal No. 364 January Term, 1976, from Order of Commonwealth Court at No. 289 C.D.1976; Theodore O. Rogers, Judge.

COUNSEL

David Cohen, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Hardy Williams, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Jones, C. J., and Eagen, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Nix, J., filed a dissenting opinion. O'Brien, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 466 Pa. Page 558]

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed. Appellant pay costs.

NIX, Justice (dissenting).

This is an appeal from an Order of Judge Rogers of the Commonwealth Court, directing the Secretary of the Commonwealth to certify the name of C. David Henry for inclusion on the ballot of the Democratic Party at the Primary Election on April 27, 1976, as a candidate for the office of Representative in the General Assembly for the 202nd Representative District of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The objection to the petition of Mr.

[ 466 Pa. Page 559]

Henry was filed by Representative Mark B. Cohen, the present incumbent for the 202nd Representative District. The basic allegation upon which the objection was premised was that Mr. Henry was not an inhabitant of the District in question for a period of one year prior to the Election as required by Article II, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.


*fn1 As noted by the court below, the term "inhabitant" as used in Article II, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, has been consistently construed to mean "one who resides permanently in a given place". I can see no difference for distinguishing this kind of residence from the domicile concept.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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