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.

Bruce Johnson, Administrator v. American Standard

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT


November 18, 2010

BRUCE JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE ESTATE OF THORNTON
JOHNSON
v.
AMERICAN STANDARD, AMCHEM
PRODUCTS, INC., A.W. CHSTERTON,
INC., BENJAMIN FOSTER CO., BRAND
INSULATIONS, BROWN BOVERI CORP.,
BURNHAM BOILER CORP.,
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CRANE
CO., DEMMING DIVISION, CRANE
PACKING, CROUSE-HINDS, CROWN
CORK & SEAL, INC., DRESSER
INDUSTRIES, INC., EASTERN GUNNITE
CO., INC., GEOGIA-PACIFIC
CORPORATION, GOULD PUMPS, INC.,
GREEN TWEED & COMPANY, INC.,
HAJOCA PLUMBING CO., INGERSOLL
RAND CO., J.H. REFRACTORIES CO.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE,
NOSROC CORP., OWENS-ILLINOIS,
INC., PECORA CORPORATION, RILEY
STOKER CORPORATION, UNION
CARBIDE CORP., WALTER B.
GALLAGHER CO., WEIL MCLAIN CO.,
VIACOM/WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORPORATION, BONDEX
INTERNATIONAL INC., CLEAVER
BROOKS CO., DURABLA,
DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,
GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., HERCULES
CHEMICAL CO., HERMAN GOLDNER
COMPANY, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., ITT
CORPORATION, MELRATH GASKET,
INC., PARS MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, RITE HOSE & PACKING,
INC., ROCKBESTOS COMPANY,
MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY HOUSE
APPEAL OF BRUCE JOHNSON
DOROTHY MAUGER, EXECUTRIX OF
44 EAP 2009 THE ESTATE OF RUSSELL MAUGER
AND IN HER OWN RIGHT
APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF SUPERIOR COURT ENTERED ON 2/6/09 AT NO. 2955 EDA
v.
2006 AFFIRMING THE ORDER ENTERED ON 10/3/06 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, A.W. CHESTERTON, INC.,
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION AT NO. CERTAINTEED CORP., INC., CRANE
2154 NOVEMBER TERM 2004 CO., CRANE PACKING, CROWN CORK
& SEAL CO., INC., DURABLA
MANUFACTURING CO., FOSECO, INC.,
GARLOCK, INC., GEORGIA-PACIFIC
CORP., GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
CO., GOODYEAR CANADA, INC.,
GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREEN TWEED
& CO., INC., HERCULES CHEMICAL
CO., J.H. REFRACTORIES CO.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE,
NOSROC CORP., PECORA CORP.,
RAPID AMERICAN CORP., UNION
CARBIDE CORP.,
VIACOM/WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORPORATION
APPEAL OF DOROTHY MAUGER
DOLORES STEA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF
45 EAP 2009 THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH STEA AND IN
HER OWN RIGHT
v.
A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., CRANE CO.,
DEMMING DIVISION, CROWN CORK &
SEAL CO., INC., FOSTER WHEELER
CORP., INC., GARLOCK, INC.,
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., GOULDS
PUMPS, INC., GREEN TWEED & CO.,
INC. MELRATH GASKET, INC.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE,
PECORA CORPORATION, RAPID
AMERICAN CORP., BEVCO
INDUSTRIES, WEIL MCLAIN CO.,
VIACOM/WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORP.
APPEAL OF DOLORES STEA

Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on 2/6/09 at No. 2954 EDA 2006 affirming the order entered on 10/3/06 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 3609 November term 2005

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mr. Justice Saylor

[J-6A-C-2010]

Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on 2/6/09 at No. 2956 EDA 2006 affirming the order entered on 10/3/06 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No 1631 November term 2004

ARGUED: March 9, 2010

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

DECIDED: November 18, 2010

In many past decisions, I have taken a broader view of standing than the majority of other Justices. See, e.g., Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 209-11, 888 A.2d 655, 663-64 (2005) (Saylor, J., dissenting). Here, I support the majority's judgment that a zone-of-interest test should not be the sole determinant of "immediacy" as that factor is used in standing analysis in Pennsylvania. Although I have no difficulty with the conclusion that Appellants have a direct, immediate, and substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation, I would note that such factors predominantly serve as the litmus applicable to standing to commence litigation (most frequently in controversy where a plaintiff seeks some sort of declaration of his or her rights and interests). With respect to those already enmeshed in an action where their rights and interests are unquestionably in issue, their standing to assert particular questions -- here, a facial constitutional challenge to a presumptively valid statute -- generally has been treated as a more refined inquiry.

In this regard, facial constitutional challenges typically are disfavored by courts. See Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450, 128 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2008); Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732, 741 (2d Cir. 2010); accord National Automobile Service, Inc. v. Barfod, 288 Pa. 227, 229, 135 A. 630, 630-31 (1927) (explaining that, to support a challenge to a statute under which a court has acted, "'it must plainly appear from the facts presented by the record, ' that the complainant is one who has been directly affected by what he claims to be the unconstitutional part or feature of the statute in question"). As to such contests to duly enacted pronouncements by the legislative branch of government, judicial restraint is implicated, and special rules of standing pertain. See, e.g., Dickerson, 604 F.3d at 741- 42.

Since this particular line of analysis is not set out in the submissions to this Court, I do not consider it further here. I note only that I would not obviate its development in the intermediate or common pleas courts, to the extent it may remain available for consideration by those tribunals.

Thus, I reference the limitations on facial challenges here primarily because, without their consideration, I am unable to support the majority's broader pronouncements concerning Appellants' standing to invoke the dormant Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses to challenge the facial validity of Section 1929.1. I also find the principles helpful to a better grasp of standing jurisprudence as applied to those whose individual interests are unquestionably at stake in an existing civil action.

20101118

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.