Opinion

Pennsylvania ex rel. George v. Commonwealth

691 A.2d 1023
1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 134

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed: Apr 1, 1997
Status: Published
Author: Doyle
On the bench: Colins, Doyle, Flaherty, Friedman, Kelley, Leadbetter, Pellegrini
Cited by: 16 cases
Authority: More cited than 19.5%

The opinion

DOYLE, Judge,

concurring.

While I concur with the majority’s decision to dismiss petitioners’ and intervenors’ petitions for review, I would hold that, under the circumstances presented in this ease, the enrolled bill doctrine precludes this Court from inquiring into the manner in which Act 57 was passed. Dintzis v. Hayden, 146 Pa.Cmwlth. 618 , 606 A.2d 660 (1992). The exception to that doctrine established by our Supreme Court in Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986), in my view, is inapplicable here.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.