Mayer v. Garman, III (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-140-2006] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, BALDWIN, JJ MIA E. MAYER v. RAY F. GARMAN, III PETITION OF: WAVERLY DEANS : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 84 EM 2006 Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief, Stay and Writ of Prohibition SUBMITTED: July 7, 2006 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE CASTILLE DECIDED: August 4, 2006 The Per Curiam Opinion tracks the standard governing issuance of a Writ of Prohibition as I set it forth in my Dissenting Opinion in Public Defender's Office of Venango County v. Venango County Court of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275, 1282-1291 (Pa. 2006) (Castille, J., dissenting). Because the Per Curiam Opinion explains why this Court s exercise of jurisdiction under that standard is appropriate, and explains why prohibition must issue, I join. I view the exercise of jurisdiction in Venango County as aberrational.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.