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.

LAWRENCE H. CURRY v. A. RUSSELL PARKHOUSE ET AL. (10/08/76)

decided: October 8, 1976.

LAWRENCE H. CURRY, APPELLANT,
v.
A. RUSSELL PARKHOUSE ET AL.



COUNSEL

Sheldon W. Farber, Norristown, for appellant.

Roger B. Reynolds, Sol., Joseph Smyth, Asst. Sol., Norristown (Withdrawn), for appellees.

Howard M. Holmes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Attorney General Robert Kane.

Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Nix, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Manderino, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 468 Pa. Page 543]

OPINION OF THE COURT

In 1975, appellant, a candidate for election as a Commissioner of Montgomery County, instituted an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County against the County Board of Elections seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to the end that certain provisions of the Absentee Ballot Law, Act of December 6, 1975, P.L.

[ 468 Pa. Page 5441405]

, No. 301, as amended, 25 P.S. § 3146.1 et seq. (Supp.1976-77), be held invalid under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. This appeal stems from an order of the court of common pleas dismissing the complaint and dissolving a preliminary injunction that restrained the Elections Board from distributing ballots issued pursuant to the statute.*fn1

We are met at the threshold with the trial court's view that appellant lacks sufficient standing to maintain this action. See Kauffman v. Osser, 441 Pa. 150, 271 A.2d 236 (1970). However, we reach neither the merits of this appeal nor the standing issue because we conclude that appellant's victory in the 1975 general election renders the case moot;*fn2 any possibility of appellant suffering an injury because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute has been obviated. Absent extraordinary circumstances, this Court has long held that moot questions will not be decided. See Epstein v. Pincus, 449 Pa. 191, 296 A.2d 763 (1972); Meyer v. Strouse, 422 Pa. 136, 221 A.2d 191 (1966); cf. Pa.R.A.P. 1972. This appeal does not present an extraordinary situation, as where the question is capable of repetition yet evading

[ 468 Pa. Page 545]

    review. See, e.g., Wiest v. Mt. Lebanon School District, 457 Pa. 166, 169 n. 1, ...


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.