In re: Nomination Petition of Littlepage, Jr. (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-77-2005] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT IN RE NOMINATION PETITION OF ALBERT LITTLEPAGE, JR., AS CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR TRAFFIC COURT IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY : : : : : : APPEAL OF: ALBERT LITTLEPAGE, JR. : : : : No. 241 EAL 2005 Order of the Commonwealth Court entered April 21, 2005 at 658 CD 2005, reversing the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Order entered March 28, 2005 at March Term 2005, No. 1452 SUBMITTED: May 5, 2005 DECIDED: May 5, 2005 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN FILED: November 22, 2006 I join the majority s decision affirming the Commonwealth Court s order, as it applied existing precedent. However, I write separately to reiterate my view that In re Benninghoff, 852 A.2d 1182 (Pa. 2004), and In re Nomination Petition of Anastasio, 820 A.2d 880 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), aff d per curiam, 827 A.2d 373 (Pa. 2003), are irreconcilable and that fatal defects [of nomination petitions] are limited to untimely filings. See Benninghoff, at 1190, 1192 (Castille, J., concurring, joined by Eakin, J.). Under this view, Candidate s amended nomination petition would have been allowed, and he would have appeared on the ballot.

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.