§ 1703. Meeting procedures.
The Supreme Court and all other agencies and units of the unified judicial system
when exercising the powers to recommend or adopt general rules or other orders in
the nature of regulations shall be an agency within the meaning of the act of July
19, 1974 (P.L.486, No.175), referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting Law.
(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days)
1978 Amendment. Act 53 added section 1703.
Constitutionality. Section 1703 was declared unconstitutional on November 14, 1978, by the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania in a letter to the Governor and the General Assembly. See In re 42
Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d 444.
References in Text. The act of July 19, 1974, P.L.486, No.175, referred to as the Public Agency Open Meeting
Law, referred to in this section, was repealed by the act of July 3, 1986, P.L.388,
No.84, known as the Sunshine Act. The Sunshine Act was repealed by the act of October
15, 1998, P.L.729, No.93. The subject matter is now contained in Chapter 7 of Title
65 (relating to open meetings).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Olivo, J., 127 A.3d 769 (Pa. 2015).
· cites it 6× “” Olivo Brief at 7 (quoting, indirectly, In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 394 A.2d 444, 451 (Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Morris, 771 A.2d 721 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “This provision outlines the scope of this court's rulemaking authority by both defining the extent of its power and placing limitations on its power.”
In Re 42 Pa. C. S. § 1703, 394 A.2d 444 (Pa. 1978).
· cites it 5× “175); the General Assembly provided in a statute now codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, that “[t]he Supreme Court and all other agencies and units of the unified judicial system when exercising the powers to recommend or adopt general rules or other orders in the nature of…”
Beyers v. Richmond, 937 A.2d 1082 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 4× “§ 403(e), providing that no former official or public employee could represent a person on any matter before the governmental body with which the employee or official was previously associated, is an unconstitutional encroachment upon the exclusive power of this Court to…”
Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of Allegheny, 436 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1981).
· cites it 2× “[5] Further, this provision declared that "[a]ll laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with the rules prescribed under [this] provision.”
Dougherty, J., Aplt. v. Heller, K., 138 A.3d 611 (Pa. 2016).
· cites it 2× “To the degree that the matter of the authority of two Justices to act on the Court’s behalf is not a jurisdictional concern, however, Article V, Section 10(c) allocates to this [J-62-2016] - 22 Court’s own prerogatives the power to regulate the conduct and administration of…”
Allen v. Mellinger, 784 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Article V, § 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution empowers this court to "prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure, and the conduct of all courts... if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights…”
Bergdoll v. Kane, 731 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 1999).
· cites it 2× “" As we stated in In Re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 534 , 394 A.”
Commonwealth v. Dobbins, 934 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d at 1194 -95 (citing In re 42 Pa. C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522 , 394 A.2d 444 (1978)).”
Cnty. of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 534 A.2d 760 (Pa. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The majority relies upon a non-existent constitutional mandate, which they justify by the fiction of an insolubly disruptive relationship between county government and the court system, to intrude upon the province of an equal branch of government and thereby offend a doctrine…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.