holding that "it has long been the policy of this Court to avoid constitutional questions where a matter can be decided on alternative, non-constitutional grounds”
How later courts described this case
- holding that "it has long been the policy of this Court to avoid constitutional questions where a matter can be decided on alternative, non-constitutional grounds”
- holding that constitutional questions should be avoided when resolution of the case based on alternative, non-constitutional grounds is possible
- "[I]t has long been the policy of this Court to avoid constitutional questions where a matter can be decided on alternative, non-constitutional grounds."
- “[I]t has long been the policy of [appellate courts] to avoid constitutional questions where a matter can be decided on alternative, non-constitutional grounds.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice BAER,
concurring.
I join in full the Majority’s opinion holding that the plain and unambiguous language of Section 103 of the Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. § 732-103, bars Appellant, Janssen Pharmaceutica, from challenging Appellee, Office of General Counsel’s hiring of outside counsel to represent it. 1
*425 I write separately only to indicate my hesitancy and discomfort with the procedural posture of this case, given that the parties have somehow proceeded to trial and conclusion in the underlying matter. First, it is bothersome to me that the parties have failed to keep this Court apprised of such proceedings, given their success in obtaining from our Court the grant of extraordinary relief to decide this important, and arguably, threshold, legal question. Moreover, I believe that the current procedural posture of the case may make the matter before us moot. Nevertheless, as it is at least plausible that the question before us likely falls into the great-public-importance or capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exceptions to the mootness doctrine, given our Court’s grant of extraordinary jurisdiction, see Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 571 Pa. 375 , 812 A.2d 591, 600-01 (2002) (alluding to the great-public-importance exception, particularly in light of a material lack of clarity in governing law); Consumers Educ. and Protective Ass’n v. Nolan, 470 Pa. 372 , 368 A.2d 675, 681 (1977) (declining to dismiss a declaratory judgment action on mootness grounds despite the expiration of the term for an administrative commissioner, explaining “we conclude that the [legal issue surrounding such claimant’s entitlement to office] presents a question capable of repetition and of sufficient public importance that it ought not to escape appellate review at this time”), and given that no party is asserting mootness at this juncture, I am able to join the Majority’s decision on the merits in full.
Justice McCAFFERY joins this concurring opinion.
. Section 103 specifies, in whole:
No party to an action, other than a Commonwealth agency including the Departments of Auditor General and State Treasury and the Public Utility Commission, shall have standing to question the authority of the legal representation of the agency.
71 P.S. § 732-103.