Buckwalter v. BOROUGH OF PHOENIXVILLE

955 A.2d 1014

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Buckwalter v. BOROUGH OF PHOENIXVILLE. Read the opinion of the Court — 603 Pa. 534 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 3, 2008·No. 85 MAL 2008·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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. Ill, § 13, now § 27, did not apply to a municipal ordinance that changed a public officer’s compensation midterm, should be reversed.

(2) Whether Pa. Const, art. Ill, § 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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. Ill, § 13, now § 27, did not apply to a municipal ordinance that changed a public officer’s compensation midterm, should be reversed.

(2) Whether Pa. Const, art. Ill, § 27 prohibits mid-term compensation changes for elected municipal officers by means of a municipal ordinance.

Buckwalter v. BOROUGH OF PHOENIXVILLE, 955 A.2d 1014 (Pa. 2008).

Pincite

955 A.2d 1014 (Buckwalter v. BOROUGH OF PHOENIXVILLE) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Baldwin v. City of Philadelphia

99 Pa. 164 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1881)

Opinion

Related