# Alaica v. Ridge

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · October 9, 2001 · 784 A.2d 837

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753263

## Case

- **Full name:** Joanne M. ALAICA, Hope L. Fuller, Larry A. Jackson, Catherine v. Vaccaro, Cynthia Goffman, Deborah A. Marshall, Richard P. Livingston, Linda L. Kavish, Thomas Knaus, Roger Kostley, Richard W. Askey, Joyce Brackbill, Mary Furhman, Susan Grimm McCoy, Tracey R. Weller, Sayre G. Turney, Kendra v. Hoffman, Lenni J. Elhajj, Mary Ann Clouser, Howard Duerr, Robert Homer, Paul J. Urbani, Michael L. Evans, Barbara Ann Bell, Janice Elerby, Donna Howard, Janice A. Laird, Jeanne Becker Walton, and Andrew Martin, Petitioners, v. Thomas J. RIDGE, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Eugene W. Hickok, Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondents
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 9, 2001
- **Citations:** 784 A.2d 837; 2001 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 722
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kelley
- **Judges:** Doyle, Colins, McGinley, Smith, Pellegrini, Kelley, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9753263

## Opinion text

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Judge KELLEY
I agree with the result reached by the majority with respect to the Commonwealth parties’ preliminary objections to Counts 1 through 5, 8, and 9 through 11 in the plaintiffs’ petition for review. In addition, I concur in the result reached by the majority with respect to the Commonwealth parties’ preliminary objections to Count 7 in the plaintiffs’ petition for review based on the reasoning outlined in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Harrisburg School District v. Hickok, 762 A.2d 398 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Kelley, J.).
However, I disagree with the majority’s resolution with respect to the Commonwealth parties’ preliminary objections to Count 6 in the plaintiffs’ petition for review based on the reasoning outlined in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Harrisburg School District v. Hickok, 781 A.2d 221 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Kelley, J.). As a result, unlike the majority, I would overrule the Commonwealth parties’ preliminary objections to Count 6 in the plaintiffs’ petition for review.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753263. Public record. Not legal advice.