In Re Nomination Petition of Lunny

44 A.3d 1, 615 Pa. 460, 2012 WL 1233011, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 825
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 13, 2012
Docket9 WAP 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 44 A.3d 1 (In Re Nomination Petition of Lunny) 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
In Re Nomination Petition of Lunny, 44 A.3d 1, 615 Pa. 460, 2012 WL 1233011, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 825 (Pa. 2012).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2012, it appearing that the Commonwealth Court erred by not striking the signatures on the Nomination Petition of Shawn Lunny appearing on Page 15, Line 8 and Page 15, Line 12, pursuant to In re: Nomination of Flaherty, 564 Pa. 671, 770 A.2d 327, 333 (2001), and In re Nomination Papers of Nader, 580 Pa. 22, 858 A.2d *461 1167, 1183 (2004) (holding, generally that “absent extraordinary circumstances, an individual who signs a nomination petition that lists an address other than the one provided on his voter registration card is not a qualified elector”); and it further appearing that as a result of this error, the Nomination Petition of Shawn Lunny contains less than the requisite 300 signatures required to be a candidate for Representative in the General Assembly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the order of the Commonwealth Court is REVERSED and the name of Shawn Lunny be REMOVED as candidate for the Democratic Nomination for Representative in the General Assembly from the 22nd Legislative District in the Primary Election to be held April 24, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the challenge of Shawn Lunny to the striking of five other signatures in his Nomination Petition be DENIED for failure to develop his claim in any meaningful fashion, and that the Motion to File Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc, filed at 18 WM 2012, be denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Emergency Motion to Dismiss Objectors’ Attorney of Record and Dismiss Appeal be DENIED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 A.3d 1, 615 Pa. 460, 2012 WL 1233011, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nomination-petition-of-lunny-pa-2012.