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 EDWARD J. BRADLEY ET AL. v. HONORABLE ROBERT P. CASEY ET AL. (08/26/88)

decided: August 26, 1988.

HONORABLE EDWARD J. BRADLEY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS. HONORABLE W. WILSON GOODE ET AL., INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS
v.
HONORABLE ROBERT P. CASEY ET AL., DEFENDANTS



Original Jurisdiction in the case of Honorable Edward J. Bradley et al., and Honorable W. Wilson Goode et al. v. Honorable Robert P. Casey et al.

COUNSEL

Arlin M. Adams, with him, Carl A. Solano and Charles P. Hehmeyer, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, for plaintiffs.

Seymour Kurland, City Solicitor, with him, Richard J. Gold, First Deputy City Solicitor, Arlene Bell, Chief Assistant City Solicitor, and Doris M. Leisch, Chief Assistant City Solicitor, for intervenor-plaintiffs.

Morey M. Myers, General Counsel, with him, Andrew H. Cline, Deputy General Counsel, and Timothy D. Searchinger, Deputy General Counsel, for defendants, Robert P. Casey and Michael H. Hershock.

Meredythe J. Y. Schrom, Deputy Counsel to the State Treasurer, and John S. Wellington, Chief Counsel, for defendant, G. Davis Greene, Jr., Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

C. Clark Hodgson, Jr., with him, Craig Russell Blackman and Patrick T. Henigan, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, for defendants, Mark S. Singel, K. LeRoy Irvis and the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

Gregory R. Neuhauser, Senior Deputy Attorney General, with him, John G. Knorr, III, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief of Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for Defendant Office of Attorney General.

Judge MacPhail. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 182]

On December 7, 1987, our Supreme Court filed its opinion in County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 517 Pa. 65, 534 A.2d 760 (1987).*fn1 In reversing this Court,*fn2 the Supreme Court held that those provisions of the Judicial Code*fn3 which required counties to fund the judicial system "is in conflict with the intent clearly expressed in the constitution that the judicial system be unified." Id. at 75, 76, 534 A.2d at 765.

Most pertinent for the matter now before us is the concluding language in that opinion:

However, because this order entails that present statutory funding for the judicial system is now void as offending the constitutional mandate for a unified system, we stay our judgment to afford the General Assembly an opportunity to enact appropriate funding legislation consistent with this holding. Until this is done, the prior system of county funding shall remain in place.

Id. at 76, 534 A.2d at 765 (footnotes omitted).

In an accompanying footnote, the Supreme Court noted that its stay order was fashioned after a similar order appearing in Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982). We note that the principal distinguishing characteristic between the two

[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 183]

    orders is that the order in Northern Pipeline was stayed until a fixed date. Our Supreme Court put no such limitation on its order.

On or about June 30, 1988, Honorable Edward J. Bradley and others responsible for the administration of the Philadelphia County court system filed two actions in mandamus: one in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the mayor of Philadelphia and other city officials and the other in this Court against ...


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.