# Pennsylvania ex rel. George v. Commonwealth

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · April 1, 1997 · 691 A.2d 1023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4953842

## Case

- **Full name:** PENNSYLVANIA AFL-CIO, by William GEORGE and Richard Bloomingdale, Trustees Ad Litem and Pennsylvania Federation of Injured Workers, Inc. and Philadelphia Area Project on Occupational Safety and Health v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania and Thomas J. Ridge, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and John J. Butler, in his official capacity as Secretary of Labor and Industry of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 1, 1997
- **Citations:** 691 A.2d 1023; 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 134
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Doyle
- **Judges:** Colins, Doyle, Flaherty, Friedman, Kelley, Leadbetter, Pellegrini
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4953842

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4953842. Public record. Not legal advice.