Carr v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Carr v. Commonwealth

200 A.3d 435

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 8, 2019

DocketNo. 460 MAL 2018

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.3d 435 (Carr v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carr v. Commonwealth, 200 A.3d 435 (Pa. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Is the Commonwealth Court's decision in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Pickering [v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)] and its progeny, which allow a government employer to terminate an employee on the basis of their speech, even when it touches upon a matter of public concern, so long as the employer can demonstrate that an adverse effect could be reasonably foreseen?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr's Facebook comments, as required by Pickering and its progeny?

(3) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr's Facebook comments, as required by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sacks?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Is the Commonwealth Court's decision in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Pickering [v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sch. Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)] and its progeny, which allow a government employer to terminate an employee on the basis of their speech, even when it touches upon a matter of public concern, so long as the employer can demonstrate that an adverse effect could be reasonably foreseen?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr's Facebook comments, as required by Pickering and its progeny?

(3) Did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by failing to give sufficient weight to the public importance, or lack thereof, of Carr's Facebook comments, as required by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sacks?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.3d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-commonwealth-pa-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack