In re Nomination Petition of Deyoung

895 A.2d 546
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Nomination Petition of Deyoung. Read the opinion of the Court — 586 Pa. 511
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 25, 2006·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2006, we REVERSE the Order of the Commonwealth Court and REMAND to the Commonwealth Court for a decision on the merits on Appellee Harry M. Riley’s Petition to Set Aside Nomination Petition. Said decision to be rendered within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. A qualified private party has a right to object to a Statement of Financial Interests attached to a Nomination Petition, therefore Appellee has standing to object in this matter. Cf. In re Nomination Petition Bryant, 578 Pa. 421, 852 A.2d 1193 (2004); In re Petition of Cioppa, 533 Pa. 564, 626 A.2d 146 (1993). Opinion to follow. Jurisdiction relinquished.

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

In re Nomination Petition of Deyoung, 895 A.2d 546 (Pa. 2006).

895 A.2d 546 (In re Nomination Petition of Deyoung) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Baranyai v. Andrezjwski
626 A.2d 146 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
In Re Bryant
852 A.2d 1193 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)