wisdom rule in Pennsylvania

2024Id. at *1. -6- involves a legal determination that, because of a person’s conduct, such as holding a child out as his own, the person, regardless of his biological relationship with a child, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will a child’s mother be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the biological father. * * * Questioning the wisdom of the presumption’s application due to dramatic societal changes that had arisen since the presumption was created, concerning not only the nature of the relationship between men and women, but also the common

2024Id. at *1. -6- involves a legal determination that, because of a person’s conduct, such as holding a child out as his own, the person, regardless of his biological relationship with a child, will not be permitted to deny parentage, nor will a child’s mother be permitted to sue a third party for support, claiming that the third party is the biological father. * * * Questioning the wisdom of the presumption’s application due to dramatic societal changes that had arisen since the presumption was created, concerning not only the nature of the relationship between men and women, but also the common

2024The OAJC expressly defined the public policy supporting the presumption of paternity as “the concern that marriages which function as family units should not be destroyed by disputes over the parentage of children conceived or born during the marriage.” … In [Strauser v. Stahr, 556 Pa. 83 , 726 A.2d 1052 (1999)], Timothy Strauser filed a custody complaint, asserting that he was the father of the youngest of the three children born to April and Steven Stahr, as demonstrated by blood tests voluntarily submitted by April, the child, and Strauser.

2024The OAJC expressly defined the public policy supporting the presumption of paternity as “the concern that marriages which function as family units should not be destroyed by disputes over the parentage of children conceived or born during the marriage.” … In [Strauser v. Stahr, 556 Pa. 83 , 726 A.2d 1052 (1999)], Timothy Strauser filed a custody complaint, asserting that he was the father of the youngest of the three children born to April and Steven Stahr, as demonstrated by blood tests voluntarily submitted by April, the child, and Strauser.

2018As this Court recently explained, “we are duty-bound to effectuate our Supreme Court's decisional law.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 177 A.3d 963 , 971 n.15 (Pa. Super. 2018) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted).

2014Id. at 284 . 4 The Walacavage Court identified two exceptions to the rule which had been adopted by other states: (1) in “special small claims courts with informal rules of procedure in which corporate as well as individual litigants are permitted or even required to appear without an attorney”; and (2) in stockholder’s derivative actions where the “non-lawyer individual stockholder plaintiff may proceed pro se on the theory that it is the stockholder’s own action even though brought for the corporation’s benefit.” Id. at 284 .

2014Id. at 284 . 4 The Walacavage Court identified two exceptions to the rule which had been adopted by other states: (1) in “special small claims courts with informal rules of procedure in which corporate as well as individual litigants are permitted or even required to appear without an attorney”; and (2) in stockholder’s derivative actions where the “non-lawyer individual stockholder plaintiff may proceed pro se on the theory that it is the stockholder’s own action even though brought for the corporation’s benefit.” Id. at 284 .

1983As the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Farino stated, “[t]here is no evidence that the person hired was less qualified.” Moreover, Ms. Farino also indicated that the supervisor who did the hiring and firing was also black, “an additional fact the Commission report fails to note.” In light of the above, I would hold that the employer met its burden of offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the complainant’s application, and I would affirm the trial court. 1 I would also note that I disagree with the majority’s use of Luzerne Community College v. Pennsylvania Human Rela

1983As the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Farino stated, “[t]here is no evidence that the person hired was less qualified.” Moreover, Ms. Farino also indicated that the supervisor who did the hiring and firing was also black, “an additional fact the Commission report fails to note.” In light of the above, I would hold that the employer met its burden of offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the complainant’s application, and I would affirm the trial court. 1 I would also note that I disagree with the majority’s use of Luzerne Community College v. Pennsylvania Human Rela

1979Although *410 in 1854 the supreme court ruled that a debtor may expressly waive the exemption, Case v. Dunmore, supra, eleven years later, the court stated: “That he may waive this option under the Act of 1849 . has been expressly declared in many cases, in some, however, with regrets expressed that we did not set out with a different construction and hold the privilege or option indefeasible.

1978Commonwealth v. Bolden, supra, 472 Pa. at 652 , 373 A.2d at 114 .

1978Commonwealth v. Bolden, supra, 472 Pa. at 652 , 373 A.2d at 114 .

1952In Bailey v. Waters, Auditor General et al., 308 Pa. 309 , 313, affg. 16 D. & C. 160 (1932), it was stated by President Judge Hargest, whose opinion was affirmed per curiam, that “it is inherent in our scheme of government that the three departments should be independent of each other and that neither department should perform functions belonging to the other nor exercise such influence over the persons conducting the affairs of other departments as to control their actions.” 8 We are of the opinion that sections 7 and 22 of article Y are part of an article referring to an entire plan for the

1934Prior to the adoption of the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, a club “organized and conducted in good faith, with a limited and selected membership, really owning its property in common, and *249 formed for social, literary or other purposes, to which the furnishing of liquors to its members would be merely incidental, in the same way to the same extent that the supplying of dinners or daily papers might be, then it cannot be considered as within either the purpose or letter of the law [Brooks Law]”: Klein v. Livingston Club, 177 Pa. 224, 232 , 35 A. 606 .

1934Prior to the adoption of the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, a club “organized and conducted in good faith, with a limited and selected membership, really owning its property in common, and *249 formed for social, literary or other purposes, to which the furnishing of liquors to its members would be merely incidental, in the same way to the same extent that the supplying of dinners or daily papers might be, then it cannot be considered as within either the purpose or letter of the law [Brooks Law]”: Klein v. Livingston Club, 177 Pa. 224, 232 , 35 A. 606 .