concurring and dissenting opinion of Roberts, J.
How later courts described this case
- concurring and dissenting opinion of Roberts, J.
- “That the [Philadelphia Home Rule] Charter constitute[s] legislation no less than does a statute of the legislature to like end is too plain for even cavil.”
- Jones, former C.J., then Jones, J., concurring
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice O’Brien:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I do so, however, on the exclusive ground that, like Jus *525 tice Roberts, I continue to adhere to the position stated by him in his concurring opinion in Chalfin v. Specter, 426 Pa. 464, 477 , 233 A. 2d 562, 568 (1967), in which concurring opinion I joined.
Since I conclude that appellant did not pursue the exclusive statutory remedy available to him, I have no reason to speculate on the question of whether §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter precludes judicial intervention.