noting Pennsylvania adheres to the “American Rule” (quoting Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus, 976 A.2d 474, 482–83 (Pa. 2009)
How later courts described this case
- noting Pennsylvania adheres to the “American Rule” (quoting Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus, 976 A.2d 474, 482–83 (Pa. 2009)
- reiterating long-standing legal precedent that courts “should not reach constitutional issue if the case can properly be decided on non-constitutional grounds”
- “[W]e will not reach the constitutional arguments presented by the objectors, having been able to- decide this case on statutory grounds.”
- “[T]he candidate here sought costs, not under Section 1726 or a rule/order of this court, but under a specific statutory provision....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, subject to the observation that I have been in a minority position in a number of the background decisions. Thus, I remain circumspect about: reading Section 977 of the Election Code as sanctioning discretionary cost awards against candidates, see In re Nader, 588 Pa. 450, 468-70 , 905 A.2d 450, 461-62 (2006) (Saylor, J., dissenting); 1 the character, scope, and legal significance of the signature irregularities noted in the Nader matter, see In re Nader, 580 Pa. 134 , 135-8 & n. 13, 860 A.2d 1 , 1-10 & n. 13 (2004) (Saylor, J., dissenting); and the import of potential inferences which may be drawn from truly wide scale signature impro *571 prieties in situations where these may be tied to the candidate himself. See In re Payton, 596 Pa. 469, 470-72 , 945 A.2d 162, 168-64 (2008) (Saylor, J., concurring).
. Although this is not a case in which costs were assessed against a candidate, the mutuality reflected in the prevailing interpretation of Section 977 makes it necessary to consider the impact on the elective franchise in determining the appropriate judicial approach to costs awards.