residency requirement in Pennsylvania

2003However, in Morrill v. Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Pa.2002), the U.S. District Court held that this residency requirement is unconstitutional.

2003However, in Morrill v. Weaver, 224 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D.Pa.2002), the U.S. District Court held that this residency requirement is unconstitutional.

2011Nonetheless, relying on the holding in Wagner v. Wagner, 887 A.2d 282 (Pa.Super.2005), Mother and Maternal Grandmother assert that although Child "spent periods of time" with Maternal Grandmother, this does not defeat the residency requirement, as Child "was in the constructive custody of Mother when she permitted [Child] to spend time with her grandparents." Mother's and Maternal Grandmother's Brief at 6.

2011Nonetheless, relying on the holding in Wagner v. Wagner, 887 A.2d 282 (Pa.Super.2005), Mother and Maternal Grandmother assert that although Child “spent periods of time” with Maternal Grandmother, this does not defeat the residency requirement, as Child “was in the constructive custody of Mother when she permitted [Child] to spend time with her grandparents.” Mother’s and Maternal Grandmother’s Brief at 6.

1974Minn. 1970), affirmed, 401 U.S. 985 , 28 L.Ed.2d 527 (1971). [9] Similarly, in Hadnott v. Amos, 401 U.S. 968 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971), the Supreme Court affirmed a district court decision which, although invalidating Alabama's voter residency requirement, upheld a residency requirement for circuit judge candidates.

1974Minn. 1970), affirmed, 401 U.S. 985 , 28 L.Ed.2d 527 (1971). 9 Similarly, in Hadnott v. Amos, 401 U.S. 968 , 28 L.Ed.2d 318 (1971), the Supreme Court affirmed a district court decision which, although invalidating Alabama’s voter residency requirement, upheld a residency requirement for circuit judge candidates.

1979The chancellor, although agreeing that the school board had a perfect right to have and to enforce a residency requirement as decided in McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 424 U.S. 645 (1976), found, based entirely on the affidavit of the associate counsel for the union, that employees hired after February 1, 1972 reasonably believed that there was “an official policy of non-compliance [sic] with the residency requirement” and that these employees had made “essential life-planning decisions on that assumption. ’ ’ The chancellor then wrote that “The court cannot allow the defen

1979This was clearly because the case of McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, supra, testing the constitutional validity of residency requirements, was pending in State courts and before the United States Supreme Court during most of this period.

2026Id. at 24 (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(c)(1) (“A party may file an amended pleading as of course within twenty days after service of a copy of preliminary objections.

2024In In re Rodriguez, 900 A.2d 341 (Pa. 2003), the Supreme Court examined the residency requirement for constables.

2024Specifically, the Supreme Court considered whether a now-repealed statute governing the appointment of a constable to fill a vacancy abrogated the common law requirement that a constable be a resident of the district served.5 Id. at 341 .

2023Moreover, this Court has ruled that “‘[t]he sole purpose [of a residency hearing is] to ensure that sufficient evidence exist[s] to substantiate [a school district’s] determination that [the parents] were not residents’ of the school district.” Whitacker-Reid, 160 A.3d at 916 (quoting Cumberland Valley, Behm v. Wilmington Area Sch.

2022This Court unanimously adopted the Street court’s holding in Nomination Petition of Prendergast, 673 A.2d 324, 325 (Pa. 1996), concluding that the residency challenge before it was justiciable.12 Cf. Nomination Petition of Hughes, 532 A.2d 298 , 303 n.5 (Pa. 1987) (noting that Jones was “a plurality opinion of this Court which has no precedential value . . . [and] established no controlling precedent”). 12 Then-Justice Castille concurred in the result. [J-39-2022] - 12 Two years after Prendergast, the General Assembly amended the Election Code yet again.

2022Mother counters that the School Board misconstrued the residency requirement in Section 1302(a) of the Public School Code of 1949 (Public School Code).5 Only one parent must reside in the school district, and there is no requirement that this residence be the parent’s “primary residence.” Cumberland Valley, 744 A.2d at 1275 .

2022Turning to Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), and the question of whether the residency of a candidate for the General Assembly is a nonjusticiable political question, I note, again, that there is no provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution that imposes a residency requirement on candidates for the General Assembly.

2022Justices McDermott and Hutchinson dissented separately, and also joined each other’s respective opinion. [J-39-2022] - 5 its characterization of the residency challenge at issue as one relying “solely on Article II, Section 5 as the predicate for . . . jurisdiction.” Id. at 1293 .

2022As such, the plurality regarded the “unstated premise” of the challengers’ argument to be that Article II, Section 5 “is self- executing,” putatively a precondition to “authoriz[ing] court involvement.” Id. at 1290 .

2019Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 131 A.3d 152 , 156 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 5 We disagree with the Treasurer’s characterization of the residency requirement.

2019Id.

2018The Board relied upon this Court’s decision in LaStella v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board of Psychology, 954 A.2d 769 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), aff’d, 970 A.2d 432 (Pa. 2009), wherein we adopted the Board’s rationale for the residency requirement: [t]he purpose of the residency requirement is to guarantee that all licensed psychologists receive an education that includes a substantial period of close physical proximity among students and faculty.

2018She appears to argue that credit hours are a clearer measurement of time in order to properly account for both online and traditional college environments. “[A] statute or regulation is unconstitutionally vague where it either traps the innocent by failing to give a person of ordinary intelligence reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited so that he may act accordingly, or results in arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement in the absence of explicit guidelines for its application.” Toms v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, 800 A.2d 342, 349 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (citing Wa

2018The Board relied upon this Court’s decision in LaStella v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board of Psychology, 954 A.2d 769 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), aff’d, 970 A.2d 432 (Pa. 2009), wherein we adopted the Board’s rationale for the residency requirement: [t]he purpose of the residency requirement is to guarantee that all licensed psychologists receive an education that includes a substantial period of close physical proximity among students and faculty.

2017Because the residency requirement is included in the home rule charter, which “has the force and status of an enactment of the General Assembly,” id., City officials lost the ability to bargain away residency requirements.

2017The City relies on In re Addison, 385 Pa. 48 , 122 A.2d 272 (1956), appeal dismissed, 352 U.S. 956 , 77 S.Ct. 353 , 1 L.Ed.2d 316 (1957), where this Court stated, “a constitutionally permissible adoption of a municipal charter is not one whit less in dignity than a statute of the legislature granting a charter.” Id. at 276. *419 The City asserts that with Act 195 the General Assembly gave it the right to determine, as a matter of local concern, whether to impose a residency requirement on police officers.

2017The City relies on In re Addison, 385 Pa. 48 , 122 A.2d 272 (1956), appeal dismissed, 352 U.S. 956 , 77 S.Ct. 353 , 1 L.Ed.2d 316 (1957), where this Court stated, “a constitutionally permissible adoption of a municipal charter is not one whit less in dignity than a statute of the legislature granting a charter.” Id. at 276. *419 The City asserts that with Act 195 the General Assembly gave it the right to determine, as a matter of local concern, whether to impose a residency requirement on police officers.

2017The City relies on In re Addison, 385 Pa. 48 , 122 A.2d 272 (1956), appeal dismissed, 352 U.S. 956 , 77 S.Ct. 353 , 1 L.Ed.2d 316 (1957), where this Court stated, “a constitutionally permissible adoption of a municipal charter is not one whit less in dignity than a statute of the legislature granting a charter.” Id. at 276. *419 The City asserts that with Act 195 the General Assembly gave it the right to determine, as a matter of local concern, whether to impose a residency requirement on police officers.