Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville
955 A.2d 1014, 598 Pa. 210, 2008 Pa. LEXIS 1437
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 3, 2008·No. Appeal No. 85 MAL 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:
(1) Whether Baldwin v. City of Philadelphia, 99 Pa. 164, 1881 WL 13869 (1881), which held Pa. Const, art. III, § 13, now § 27, did not apply to a municipal ordinance that changed a public officer’s compensation mid-term, should be reversed.
(2) Whether Pa. Const, art. III, § 27 prohibits mid-term compensation changes for elected municipal officers by means of a municipal ordinance.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville, 955 A.2d 1014, 598 Pa. 210, 2008 Pa. LEXIS 1437 (Pa. 2008).
955 A.2d 1014 (Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Department of Health v. Data-Quest, Inc.
972 A.2d 74 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)