where a petition was filed with the court requesting a clarification of its earlier opinions relating to the Girard Trust, in light of a recent Federal District Court ruling that construed a Pennsylvania Statute contrary to the Supreme Court’s 1956 and 1958 holdings
How later courts described this case
- where a petition was filed with the court requesting a clarification of its earlier opinions relating to the Girard Trust, in light of a recent Federal District Court ruling that construed a Pennsylvania Statute contrary to the Supreme Court’s 1956 and 1958 holdings
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones :
I join in that which has been stated by the majority of my colleagues in the denial of this petition.
I would add that, in my opinion, the procedure adopted by the petitioners to obtain clarification not of *300 orders but of opinions of this Court, rendered ten and eight years ago, respectively, is highly inappropriate.
Mr. Justice Eagen and Mr. Justice O’Brien join in this concurring opinion.