# In Re Nomination Petition of Farnese

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 29, 2011 · 609 Pa. 543

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770076

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Nomination Petition of Lawrence M. FARNESE, Jr., for the Democratic Nomination for Senator in the General Assembly for the First Senatorial District in the Primary of April 22, 2008 Appeal of Keith Olkowski and Theresa A. Paylor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 29, 2011
- **Citations:** 609 Pa. 543; 17 A.3d 357; 2011 Pa. LEXIS 683
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan
- **Cited by:** 31 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/9770076

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting Pennsylvania adheres to the “American Rule” (quoting Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus, 976 A.2d 474, 482–83 (Pa. 2009)

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770076. Public record. Not legal advice.