# Girard Clarification Petition

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 6, 1966 · 423 Pa. 297

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534673

## Case

- **Full name:** Girard Clarification Petition
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 6, 1966
- **Citations:** 423 Pa. 297; 224 A.2d 761; 1966 Pa. LEXIS 470
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Roberts
- **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9534673

## Opinion text

Opinion by
Me. Justice Roberts,
Tbe sole issue before this Court is whether we should entertain a petition for clarification of two opinions rendered by this Court in the Girard College Trusteeship, 391 Pa. 434 , 138 A. 2d 844 (1958), and Girard Will Case, 386 Pa. 548 , 127 A. 2d 287 (1956), eight and ten years ago respectively. Only two members of the present Court participated in the first Girard decision, and three, in the second.
Significantly the district court refused to abstain from deciding the state issues involved in this controversy. Commonwealth v. Brown et al., Trustees of the Estate of Stephen Girard, 260 F. Supp. 323 (E.D. Pa. 1966). Due regard for the proper administration of our federal-state system of dual judicial tribunals suggests that it would be highly inappropriate for this Court to entertain the petition for clarification, since the district court’s decision is currently on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
It should be emphasized, however, that the determination by this Court not to entertain the petition in no way implies a view on the merits of any issue in the controversy presently before the federal courts.
The petition for clarification is therefore denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534673. Public record. Not legal advice.