promulgation rule in Pennsylvania

2006As such, the rule clearly directs that the court take into consideration both monthly income and the delineated monthly obligations in making a determination of IFP status. ¶ 15 Moreover, Pa.R.C.P. 128(b) provides that in ascertaining the intention of our Supreme Court in the promulgation of a rule of court, the courts of this Commonwealth are guided, inter alia, by the presumption “[t]hat the Supreme Court intends the entire rule ... to be effective and certain.” Cutlip v. Shugars, 815 A.2d 1060 (Pa.Super.2003).

2003In support of her position, plaintiff cited Openbrier v. General Mills Inc., 340 Pa. 167 , 16 A.2d 379 (1940), in which the Supreme Court affirmed a decision permitting a defendant to be sued in Washington County.

2003In support of her position, plaintiff cited Openbrier v. General Mills Inc., 340 Pa. 167 , 16 A.2d 379 (1940), in which the Supreme Court affirmed a decision permitting a defendant to be sued in Washington County.

1988Consequently, though I am inclined to agree with Judge Wieand that the promulgation of a rule for future cases is unnecessary to the disposition of this case and beyond the function of this Court, in response to the suggestion of the majority regarding Turner's implications for future cases, I note that I would definitely not construe Turner to require that a Finley letter contain an explanation of "why petitioner's issues were meritless." NOTES [1] Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 , 107 S.Ct. 1990 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). [2] Commonwealth v. Finley, 330 Pa.Super. 313 , 479 A.2d 568 (1984)

1988Consequently, though I am inclined to agree with Judge Wieand that the promulgation of a rule for future cases is unnecessary to the disposition of this case and beyond the function of this Court, in response to the suggestion of the majority regarding Turner's implications for future cases, I note that I would definitely not construe Turner to require that a Finley letter contain an explanation of "why petitioner's issues were meritless." NOTES [1] Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 , 107 S.Ct. 1990 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). [2] Commonwealth v. Finley, 330 Pa.Super. 313 , 479 A.2d 568 (1984)

1988Consequently, though I am inclined to agree with Judge Wieand that the promulgation of a rule for future cases is unnecessary to the disposition of this case and beyond the function of this Court, in response to the suggestion of the majority regarding Turner's implications for future cases, I note that I would definitely not construe Turner to require that a Finley letter contain an explanation of "why petitioner's issues were meritless." NOTES [1] Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 , 107 S.Ct. 1990 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). [2] Commonwealth v. Finley, 330 Pa.Super. 313 , 479 A.2d 568 (1984)

1988Consequently, though I am inclined to agree with Judge Wieand that the promulgation of a rule for future cases is unnecessary to the disposition of this case and beyond the function of this Court, in response to the suggestion of the majority regarding Turner's implications for future cases, I note that I would definitely not construe Turner to require that a Finley letter contain an explanation of "why petitioner's issues were meritless." NOTES [1] Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 , 107 S.Ct. 1990 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). [2] Commonwealth v. Finley, 330 Pa.Super. 313 , 479 A.2d 568 (1984)

1983In Hacker v. Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 263 , 405 A.2d 1379 (1979), we said that the purpose of the Commission’s promulgation of the rule prohibiting the presence of any foreign substance was to eliminate any of the prohibited drugs in order to ensure the integrity of the race and the confidence of the public in the fairness of races.

1983In Hacker v. Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 263 , 405 A.2d 1379 (1979), we said that the purpose of the Commission’s promulgation of the rule prohibiting the presence of any foreign substance was to eliminate any of the prohibited drugs in order to ensure the integrity of the race and the confidence of the public in the fairness of races.

1977Retroactivity has generated a large body of judicial and scholarly debate. 27 The first major United States *189 Supreme Court case to confront the issue was Linkletter v. Walker, supra. In Linkletter , the Court declined to apply Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), 28 to state convictions which had become final 29 prior to the overruling of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). 30 Linkletter was the first case in which a majority of the Supreme Court recognized its power to give constitutional rules prospective operation: 31 “It

1977Retroactivity has generated a large body of judicial and scholarly debate. 27 The first major United States *189 Supreme Court case to confront the issue was Linkletter v. Walker, supra. In Linkletter , the Court declined to apply Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), 28 to state convictions which had become final 29 prior to the overruling of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). 30 Linkletter was the first case in which a majority of the Supreme Court recognized its power to give constitutional rules prospective operation: 31 “It

1977Retroactivity has generated a large body of judicial and scholarly debate. 27 The first major United States *189 Supreme Court case to confront the issue was Linkletter v. Walker, supra. In Linkletter , the Court declined to apply Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), 28 to state convictions which had become final 29 prior to the overruling of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). 30 Linkletter was the first case in which a majority of the Supreme Court recognized its power to give constitutional rules prospective operation: 31 “It

1977Retroactivity has generated a large body of judicial and scholarly debate. 27 The first major United States *189 Supreme Court case to confront the issue was Linkletter v. Walker, supra. In Linkletter , the Court declined to apply Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), 28 to state convictions which had become final 29 prior to the overruling of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). 30 Linkletter was the first case in which a majority of the Supreme Court recognized its power to give constitutional rules prospective operation: 31 “It

1977Retroactivity has generated a large body of judicial and scholarly debate. 27 The first major United States *189 Supreme Court case to confront the issue was Linkletter v. Walker, supra. In Linkletter , the Court declined to apply Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), 28 to state convictions which had become final 29 prior to the overruling of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). 30 Linkletter was the first case in which a majority of the Supreme Court recognized its power to give constitutional rules prospective operation: 31 “It

1977Retroactivity has generated a large body of judicial and scholarly debate. 27 The first major United States *189 Supreme Court case to confront the issue was Linkletter v. Walker, supra. In Linkletter , the Court declined to apply Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), 28 to state convictions which had become final 29 prior to the overruling of Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). 30 Linkletter was the first case in which a majority of the Supreme Court recognized its power to give constitutional rules prospective operation: 31 “It

1975Since the promulgation of the rule under the mandate of Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed 2d 113 (1971), we have been deciding the issue of eligibility on a case by case basis after notice to the county and to the defendant.

1975Since the promulgation of the rule under the mandate of Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 , 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed 2d 113 (1971), we have been deciding the issue of eligibility on a case by case basis after notice to the county and to the defendant.

1973I there advanced the view that this unsatisfactory rule, developed as it was by the common law, was a fit subject for abrogation by judicial action: ". . . the judiciary's traditional responsibility for adapting and improving the doctrines of the common law, particularly in the area of torts, coupled with its original role in the promulgation of the immunity rule, indicate that the judiciary is a natural and proper agent of change in the present case, unless there are countervailing considerations of such strength as to demonstrate the unwisdom of such a conclusion." Id. at 582 .

1973I there advanced the view that this unsatisfactory rule, developed as it was by the common law, was a fit subject for abrogation by judicial action: “. . . the judiciary’s traditional responsibility for adapting and improving the doctrines of the common law, particularly in the area of torts, coupled with its original role in the promulgation of the immunity rule, indicate that the judiciary is a natural and proper agent of change in the present case, unless there are countervailing considerations of such strength as to demonstrate the unwisdom of such a conclusion.” Id. at 582 .