green
Positive treatment
4.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth
See Common Cause v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff'd, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 *317 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pennsylvania School Boards Ass'n v. Commonwealth Ass'n of School Administrators
See Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 112 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (holding that although parties have not stipulated to the facts relating to the enactment of a statute, the court can take judicial notice of legislative journals and various versions of the bill ultimately enacted), af f'd per curiam, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000); League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 692 A.2d 263, 263 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 691 A.2d 1023 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), aff'd, 563 Pa. 108 , 757 A.2d 917 (2000); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 683 A…
discussed
Cited "see"
Harrisburg School District v. Hickok
(2×)
See Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 118 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff' d, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, 691 A.2d at 1033 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sernovitz v. Dershaw
In more recent years, however, the Court observed extreme deference to the Legislature, validating bills under the single-subject test that included a range of topics, as long as they could “reasonably be viewed as falling under one broad subject.” City of Philadelphia, 575 Pa. at 576 , 838 A.2d at 587 ; see, e.g., Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000) (per cu-riam ) (affirming the decision of the Commonwealth Court upholding a bill amending Title 75 (the Vehicle Code) and Title 74 (relating to transportation) as relating to a single subject, vehicula…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stilp v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See, e.g., Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff'd per curiam, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000) (“Based upon the above five factors [for taxpayer standing outlined in Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986) ], we conclude that the circumstances of the present case warrant the granting of standing to petitioners.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMON CAUSE/PENNSYLVANIA and Citizens Against New Toll Roads and Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and Zero Population Growth, Inc., (At 61/98)
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania and Thomas J. Ridge, Governor and Robert A. Judge, Sr., Secretary of Revenue and Bradley L. Mallory, Secretary of Transportation, Senator Robert C. Jubelirer and Representative Matthew J. Ryan, Intervenors (Appeal of At 63/98)
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania and Thomas J. Ridge, Governor and Robert A. Judge, Sr., Secretary of Revenue and Bradley L. Mallory, Secretary of Transportation, Senator Robert C. Jubelirer and Representative Matthew J. Ryan, Intervenors (Appeal of At 63/98)
Appeal Nos. 61 & 63 M.D. Appeal Docket 1998.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Aug 30, 2000.
Published
[*633] ORDER
PER CURIAM:AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2000 the Order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby affirmed. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, et al. v. Commonwealth et al., — Pa.-, 757 A.2d 917 (1998).