holding that courts of the Commonwealth “should not give answers to academic questions or render advisory opinions or make decisions based on assertions as to hypothetical events that might occur in the future”
How later courts described this case
- holding that courts of the Commonwealth “should not give answers to academic questions or render advisory opinions or make decisions based on assertions as to hypothetical events that might occur in the future”
- explaining “that while subject matter jurisdiction concerns the power of a court to hear a claim, the doctrine of ripeness concerns the timing of a court[’s] intervention in litigation”
- deeming PEDP’s challenge to constitutionality of rezoning ordinance unripe *435 because ordinance had not yet been applied so as to subject Gaming Board’s decision and hinder PEDP’s desired use of its licensed Foxwoods site
- deeming PEDP's challenge to constitutionality of rezoning ordinance unripe because ordinance had not yet been applied so as to subject Gaming Board's decision and hinder PEDP's desired use of its licensed Foxwoods site
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice CASTILLE,
concur.
On the current pleadings, I agree with the denial of the Application for Reargument. However, I would allow Petitioner Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners (“PEDP”) the opportunity to amend the original filing in this matter to augment the record with additional and/or disputed facts that demonstrate that PEDP is in fact situated identically to the petitioners in HSP Gaming L.P. v. Council for the City of Philadelphia, 593 Pa. 358 , 930 A.2d 1251 (2007). I would also retain jurisdiction.