Opinion

Commonwealth ex rel. Pittenger v. Leechburg Area School Board

  • 19 Pa. Commw. 140
  • 339 A.2d 149
  • 1975 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 984
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
May 19, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Mencer
On the bench
Blatt, Bowman, Crumlish, Kramer, Mencer, Rogers, Wilkinson
Cited by
6 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.0%

The opinion

*143 Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Mencer:

I respectfully dissent.

Adhering yet to my belief that the attendance requirements of the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P. L. 30, 24 P.S. §1—101 et seq., should be complied with, as far as it is possible to do so within the school year, I would grant plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. I do not comprehend why, in the instant case, the four lost days of instruction cannot be rescheduled by the defendant school district and thereby achieve full compliance with the attendance requirements of the School Code. My detailed reasons for this conclusion can be found in my dissenting opinion filed in Root v. Northern Cambria School District, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 174 , 309 A. 2d 175 (1973).

Judge Blatt joins in this dissent.

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.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.