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
*489 Justice BAER,
concur.
This Court being prohibited from considering facts not of record, see Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504 , 698 A.2d 581, 586 (Pa.1997) (citing, McCaffrey v. Pittsburgh Athletic Association, 448 Pa. 151 , 293 A.2d 51, 57 (Pa.1972) (appellate court cannot consider anything which is not part of the record)), I join in the Court’s per curiam Order denying the Application for Reargument of Petitioner Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners L.P. d/b/a/ Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia and Request for Expedited Treatment.