Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TIMOTHY A. REESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL : No. 82 MM 2016

CAPACITY AS THE TREASURER OF :

THE COMMONWEALTH OF :

PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : :

PENNSYLVANIANS FOR UNION :

REFORM AND SIMON CAMPBELL, :

PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF :

ADMINISTRATION : :

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, :

COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL :

EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13, AFL-CIO; :

FEDERATION OF STATE, CULTURAL :

AND EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS, :

LOCAL 2383 AMERICAN FEDERATION :

OF TEACHERS PENNSYLVANIA, AFL- :

CIO; AND UNITED FOOD AND :

COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1776, :

AFL-CIO, :

Intervenors : : :

PETITION OF: AMERICAN FEDERATION :

OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL :

EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13, AFL-CIO; :

FEDERATION OF STATE, CULTURAL :

AND EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS, :

LOCAL 2383 AMERICAN FEDERATION :

OF TEACHERS PENNSYLVANIA, AFL- :

CIO; AND UNITED FOOD AND :

COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1776, :

AFL-CIO, : :

Intervenors :

DISSENTING STATEMENT

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR FILED: November 10, 2016 I respectfully dissent from the grant of this Petition for Review, as the majority offers no indication that it has applied the standard governing review of the Commonwealth Court’s discretionary decision to deny certification of a non-final order for interlocutory appeal by permission. Upon application of that controlling standard – which requires an assessment of whether such denial was so egregious as to justify prerogative appellate correction, see Pa.R.A.P. 1311, Note – I find nothing egregious in the Commonwealth Court’s denial. Indeed, to the degree that the refusal to certify could be considered egregious, I believe it would be salutary for this Court to provide some guiding explanation pertaining to the irregularity, so that courts of original jurisdiction may prospectively conform to this Court’s expectations.

Justice Mundy joins this dissenting statement.

[82 MM 2016] - 2