declining to dismiss a declaratory judgment action on mootness grounds despite the expiration of the term for which one claiming the status of an administrative commissioner, explaining "we conclude that the [legal issue surrounding such claimant's entitlement to office] presents a question capable of repetition and of sufficient public importance that it ought not to escape appellate review at this time"
How later courts described this case
- declining to dismiss a declaratory judgment action on mootness grounds despite the expiration of the term for which one claiming the status of an administrative commissioner, explaining "we conclude that the [legal issue surrounding such claimant's entitlement to office] presents a question capable of repetition and of sufficient public importance that it ought not to escape appellate review at this time"
- declining to dismiss a declaratory judgment action on mootness grounds despite the expiration of the term for an administrative commissioner, explaining “we conclude that the [legal issue surrounding such claimant’s entitlement to office] presents a question capable of repetition and of sufficient public importance that it ought not to escape appellate review at this time”
- holding there is no basis for distinguishing the scope of the Speech and Debate Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution from that in the United States Constitution
- holding Pennsylvania speech and debate immunity is “essentially identical” in language and scope with its federal counterpart (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 6).
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
This case is controlled by section 7 of the Sunshine Law, 1 which enumerates those meetings of the Legislature which are covered by the Sunshine Law. 2
A vote of the Senate Executive Nominations Committee to refer a gubernatorial nomination to the Senate floor does not come within section 7. Section 7 provides:
“For the purposes of this act, meetings of the Legislature which are covered are as follows: all meetings of committees where bills are considered, all hearings where testimony is taken, all sessions of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Not included in the intent of this act are party caucuses.” 3
*392 Since a vote to refer a nomination to the Senate floor does not come within this provision, it is not subject to the Sunshine Law.
According, I concur in the result, based solely on section 7 of the Sunshine Law.
. Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 486, § 7, 65 P.S. § 267 (Supp.1976).
. 65 P.S.§ 261 et seq.
. Id. i 267.