SEPTA v. City of Philadelphia, et al, Aplts. (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-87-2016][M.O. – Mundy, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellee v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND PHILADELPHIA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 10 EAP 2016 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 2445 CD 2009 filed 8/7/15 reversing and remanding the order, dated 11/10/09 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 03055, July Term, 2009 ARGUED: September 13, 2016 CONCURRING OPINION CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: April 26, 2017 I join the lead opinion, subject to the proviso that I agree with Justice Wecht’s comments about the relevant analytical framework. In this respect, I also note that sometimes, the mechanical formulation and heralding of a specific test – such as what the Court has dubbed the “Ogontz test” – has unintended consequences. Here, I agree with Justice Wecht, that the “Ogontz test” reflects nothing more than a conventional application of principles of statutory construction. As such, and since the discrete, tiered analysis appears to be generating disharmony, I would prefer to abandon the label at this juncture. In its place, I would simply refer directly to the Statutory Construction Act.
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.
