# Smith v. City of Philadelphia

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 3, 1986 · 512 Pa. 129

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544337

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruth v. SMITH, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry F. Smith, Deceased and Rita Ladzensky, Administratrix of the Estate of Gerald Ladzensky, Deceased and Charles Alexander Scott, Appellees, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Philadelphia Gas Works and Philadelphia Facilities Management Corporation, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 3, 1986
- **Citations:** 512 Pa. 129; 516 A.2d 306; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 874
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 45 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/9544337

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining “[b]ecause the right implicated . . . —access to the courts—is specifically limited by Art. I, § 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we concluded that it is not a fundamental right”
- Noting that the “important interest in access to the courts . . . should be examined pursuant to an intermediate standard of review.”

## Opinion text

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the majority. I do, however, wish to note that I appreciate the concern of the concurring justices. Mr. Justice Flaherty is unquestionably correct in concluding that the right of access represents a fundamental right and that its denial should require the application of the “heightened scrutiny” standard of review. Whether every limitation upon that right is to be accorded the same status as an absolute denial of access or where to draw the line pose much more difficult questions. In this matter, the question fortunately is academic because, under either standard, the result is the same.
Suffice it to say that, in my judgment, not all legislative restrictions which impact upon access to the courts will require the “heightened scrutiny” analysis. See, e.g., Kras *141 v. United States, 409 U.S. 434 , 93 S.Ct. 631 , 34 L.Ed.2d 626 (1973). Moreover, I do not understand the majority to disagree with this view.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544337. Public record. Not legal advice.