holding that, even if two Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices hearing an earlier case had been improperly “interested,” the judgment would not be vacated because the judges’ participation was “mere surplusage” in the 6-1 decision
How later courts described this case
- holding that, even if two Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices hearing an earlier case had been improperly “interested,” the judgment would not be vacated because the judges’ participation was “mere surplusage” in the 6-1 decision
- noting that “[i]t is the sole function of the judiciary to interpret the constitutional mandate, including the intended use of powers conferred upon the legislature”
- recognizing the benefit of having “the reflective judgment enriched by the varied perspectives” of a full court’s participation
- suggesting that a judge’s self-evaluation of impartiali.ty is guided by the factors provided in the Code of Judicial Conduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
concurring and dissenting.
After reconsideration and the careful, learned analysis of the Chief Justice for the majority, I regret I cannot agree that prospective compensation, including pension, are not the prerogative of the Legislature. However, I join the majority opinion on the issue of recusal.