Commonwealth Ex Rel. Reno v. Lawler

22 A.2d 900, 343 Pa. 353, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 626
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 29, 1941
DocketAppeal, 303
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 22 A.2d 900 (Commonwealth Ex Rel. Reno v. Lawler) 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
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Reno v. Lawler, 22 A.2d 900, 343 Pa. 353, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 626 (Pa. 1941).

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

This case originated in a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the County Commissioners of Lackawanna County, acting as the Registration Commission of the City of Carbondale, a third class city of that County, to summon and interrogate the electorate of the city as to literacy and disability for voting prior to the primary election to be held on September 9, 1941. This was claimed to be in furtherance of the new Permanent Registration Act of ,May 25, 1937, P. L. 849, which requires certain data from persons asking assistance and registering thereafter. The learned court below held that since that Act was effective only after the date of its enactment, it applied only to those registering after that time, and that those electors of Carbondale, some 6,000 in number, who had already registered under the Permanent Registration Act of Jiily 1, 1935, P. L. 478, which Act was repealed by the Act of May 25, 1937, were not required to re-register, and that in the absence of a legislative mandate there was no power in .the court to compel them to appear for that purpose. The learned court sustained the motion to quash the writ, and this appeal having been taken, appellees have moved to quash it. We are of opinion that the conclusion of the court below was correct; however, since the pleadings, including the petition and writ of alternative mandamus, were limited in their scope to action to be taken before and made effective upon the primary election of September 9,1941, and since that election has already taken place, the whole proceeding is now moot. Nothing more than an advisory opinion could result from further consideration of the case.

Motion to quash appeal sustained, at cost of appellant.

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

Related

American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Zion & Klein, P.A.
466 A.2d 679 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Graziano Const. Co., Inc. v. Lee
444 A.2d 1190 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Commonwealth v. Nance
434 A.2d 769 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Baker Nursing Home, Inc. Appeal
369 A.2d 1336 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
SACRED HEART HOSPITAL v. Lanshe
282 A.2d 331 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
O'Donnell v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
45 A.2d 369 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.2d 900, 343 Pa. 353, 1941 Pa. LEXIS 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-reno-v-lawler-pa-1941.