Blair Hindman, et al. v. Tom Wolf, Governor (concurring)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT BLAIR HINDMAN, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY FOR HIMSELF, AND ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES, Petitioner v. TOM WOLF, GOVERNOR, Respondent : No. 58 WM 2020 : : : : : : : : : : : : : CONCURRING STATEMENT JUSTICE WECHT I agree that this case should be dismissed. FILED: August 5, 2020 This case involves issues that generally overlap with those the Court recently dismissed without explanation in Private Properties, LLC v. Wolf, a decision from which I dissented.1 I join the Court’s decision to dismiss this case, but I do so specifically because the perfunctory arguments presented by Petitioner are inadequately developed to merit an exercise of our extraordinary King’s Bench jurisdiction. Rule of Appellate Procedure 123 requires an applicant for relief in our appellate courts to “state with particularity the grounds on which [the application] is based,” and specifically acknowledges the prospect that an applicant may attach a supporting brief to an application. Pa.R.A.P. 123(a). Merely citing a jumble of Pennsylvania and federal 1 See Private Props., LLC v. Wolf, 90 MM 2020, ___ A.3d ___, 2020 WL 4381579 (Pa. July 31, 2020) (per curiam), and this author’s Dissenting Statement thereto. Constitutional principles2 does not satisfy Rule 123’s requirements, especially in invoking this Court’s seldom-granted King’s Bench jurisdiction. Even extraordinary urgency does not warrant entirely jettisoning an applicant’s burden to state clearly the basis upon which he seeks relief. If Petitioner’s arguments were fully developed, and a majority of this Court’s members still was inclined to dismiss this case, I would reaffirm my position as stated in Private Properties, see supra n.1—that the underlying constitutional question concerning the Governor’s authority to preclude judicial eviction actions is sufficiently important, and sufficiently urgent, to warrant’s this Court’s exercise of King’s Bench authority. 2 See Petitioner’s Application for Extraordinary Relief at 11-12. [58 WM 2020] - 2

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.