opinion in support of affirmance by O’Brien, C. J., joined by Nix and Flaherty, JJ.; separate opinion in support of affirmance by Nix, J.; opinion in support of reversal by Roberts, J., joined by Larsen and Kauffman, JJ.
How later courts described this case
- opinion in support of affirmance by O’Brien, C. J., joined by Nix and Flaherty, JJ.; separate opinion in support of affirmance by Nix, J.; opinion in support of reversal by Roberts, J., joined by Larsen and Kauffman, JJ.
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Shiomos v. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT BD., 128 Pa. Commw. 39 (1989)
Generally, Miller is inapposite to the present case which concerns Article V of the Constitution, the relevant portions of which were in effect at the time Glancey became a member of the system.
The opinion
DISSENT FROM THE DENIAL OF REARGUMENT
Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Larsen
dissent and would grant reargument for the reasons set forth in the opinion in support of reversal of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Mr. Justice Larsen and Justice Kauffman, in Miller & Fineman v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 498 Pa. 103 , 445 A.2d 88 (1981), and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Mr. Justice Larsen, in Bellomini & Cianfrani v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 498 Pa. 204 , 445 A.2d 737 (1982).