# Consumers Education & Protective Ass'n v. Nolan

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 28, 1977 · 470 Pa. 372

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6261534

## Case

- **Full name:** CONSUMERS EDUCATION AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION v. Thomas M. NOLAN, Individually and as Chairman of the Rules and Executive Nominations Committee of the Pennsylvania Senate
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 28, 1977
- **Citations:** 470 Pa. 372; 368 A.2d 675; 1977 Pa. LEXIS 533
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Appeal, Brien, Dismiss, Eagen, Grant, Issue, Jones, Manderino, Moot, Motion, Nix, Pomeroy, Roberts, View
- **Cited by:** 74 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/6261534

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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] prese…
- 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 repetit…
- 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).

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6261534. Public record. Not legal advice.