Flora v. Luzerne County
118 A.3d 385, 632 Pa. 145
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 30, 2015·No. 952 MAL 2014 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
*146 ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:
(1) In a matter of first impression, do petitioners state a claim for constructive denial of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, based on chronic and systemic deficiencies in the operation of Luzerne County’s Office of the Public Defender that deprive them and the class they seek to represent of their right to effective assistance of counsel? See Pa. R.A.P. 1114(b)(3), (4).
(2) Do Petitioners state a claim of mandamus to compel Respondents to provide adequate funding for Luzerne County’s Office of the Public Defender, as required by the Commonwealth’s Public Defender Act, 16 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9960.1-9960.13 (hereinafter the “Public Defender Act”)? See Pa. R.A.P. 1114(b)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Flora v. Luzerne County, 118 A.3d 385, 632 Pa. 145 (Pa. 2015).
118 A.3d 385 (Flora v. Luzerne County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kuren v. Luzerne County
146 A.3d 715 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)