In Re Taylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In Re Taylor

921 A.2d 1181, 591 Pa. 651, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 952

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 30, 2007

Docket356 MAL 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 921 A.2d 1181 (In Re Taylor) 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 Taylor, 921 A.2d 1181, 591 Pa. 651, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 952 (Pa. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

AMENDED ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Commonwealth Court is REVERSED, and the matter is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for reinstatement of that court’s order granting the petition for writ of mandamus. The Election Code must be liberally construed so as not to deprive an individual of his right to run for office, or the voters of their right to elect a candidate of their choice. Nomination Petition of Ross, 411 Pa. 45, 190 A.2d 719 (1963) (holding defect in notarization of circulator’s affidavit was amendable); Nomination Petition of Fowler, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 639, 574 A.2d 127 (1990) (same).

Justice SAYLOR dissents for the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of Senior Judge KELLEY of the Commonwealth Court. Justice CASTILLE and EAKIN join in this dissent.

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

AMENDED ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Commonwealth Court is REVERSED, and the matter is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for reinstatement of that court’s order granting the petition for writ of mandamus. The Election Code must be liberally construed so as not to deprive an individual of his right to run for office, or the voters of their right to elect a candidate of their choice. Nomination Petition of Ross, 411 Pa. 45, 190 A.2d 719 (1963) (holding defect in notarization of circulator’s affidavit was amendable); Nomination Petition of Fowler, 132 Pa.Cmwlth. 639, 574 A.2d 127 (1990) (same).

Justice SAYLOR dissents for the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion of Senior Judge KELLEY of the Commonwealth Court. Justice CASTILLE and EAKIN join in this dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 A.2d 1181, 591 Pa. 651, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-taylor-pa-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack