# In Re Nomination Petition of Freeman

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · April 8, 1988 · 115 Pa. Commw. 300

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714482

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re: Nomination Petition of Grady A. Freeman as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 5 Division. Vivian T. Miller/51 Ward, Appellant; In Re: Nomination Petition of Harold Barksdale as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 10 Division. Renee Savior/51 Ward, Appellant; In Re: Nomination Petition of Bernard Norwood as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 12 Division. Vivian T. Miller and 51 Ward, Appellants; In Re: Nomination Petition of Ronald Jackson as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 6 Division. Vivian T. Miller and 51 Ward, Appellants; In Re: Nomination Petition of Rodney Goldston as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 25 Division. Alfreda Harris/51 Ward, Appellant; In Re: Nomination Petition of Michael Gibbs as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 15 Division. Ronald J. Sharper/51 Ward, Appellant; In Re: Nomination Petition of William M. Tyson as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 15 Division. Ronald J. Sharper/51 Ward, Appellant; In Re: Nomination Petition of Steven Kennedy as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 18 Division. Lottie Bazemore/51 Ward, Appellant; In Re: Nomination Petition of Albert R. Lacy, Jr. as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 16 Division. Vivian T. Miller and 51 Ward, Appellants; In Re: Nomination Petition of James H. Peddy as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 25 Division. Alfreda Harris/51 Ward, Appellant; In Re: Nomination Petition of Aljia Dumas as Democratic Candidate for Office of Ward Executive Committee for the 51 Ward, 14 Division. Demetrius Monk and Vivian Miller and 51 Ward, Appellants
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 8, 1988
- **Citations:** 115 Pa. Commw. 300; 540 A.2d 606; 1988 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 231
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Palladino
- **Judges:** Doyle, Palladino, Smith
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9714482

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that it is not necessary for signatures to appear in chronological order

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Palladino,
April 11, 1988:
Although I concur in the result, I find it necessary to make some observations about the majority opinion because of my concern about the discussion of issues which need not be addressed to resolve these eleven cases.
The majority correctly holds on pages 308-309 that the 51st Ward Executive Committee was never a party and never petitioned to intervene in this case. Nonetheless, the majority does discuss the issue of standing. Majority op. at 308 n.6.
First, the majority, sua sponte, concludes that a ward executive committee has standing to challenge the nominating petitions of divisional candidates for the office of ward executive committee (each division elects two individuals to serve on the ward executive committee). Then the majority, again sua sponte, opines that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that standing is not jurisdictional.
Once the majority concluded that the 51st Ward Executive Committee was not a party and had not sought to intervene, any discussion of whether a ward executive committee would have standing to challenge the nominating petition of a divisional candidate and whether standing is jurisdictional is incorrect. Additionally, the cases cited, Barlip and Jones Memorial Baptist Church, are not necessarily dispositive of those issues. Any indication of how this court would resolve them is presumptuous and premature. The resolution of these matters should be deferred until they are raised as issues before this court and counsel have had an opportunity to address them.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714482. Public record. Not legal advice.