Court Unification as Constitutional Law: The Pennsylvania Experience

• NCJ Number: 141007
• Journal: Justice System Journal Volume: 16 Issue: 1 Dated: (1992) Pages: 123-135
• Author(s): J P Nase
• Date Published: 1992
• Length: 13 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Three Pennsylvania cases are examined to determine the implications of pursuing court unification through constitutional revision: County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, Goodheart v. Casey, and Klein v. State Employees' Retirement System.

Abstract

The decisions in three recent Pennsylvania cases demonstrate that a constitutional provision can have a considerable impact on substantive law. The case of Goodheart v. Casey, for example, shows that other constitutional provisions now will be construed in light of the unification clause and possibly alter their meaning in significant ways. Further, the unification provision itself can give rise to a body of substantive law. Additionally, these decisions demonstrate that a constitutional provision on unification allows a wide range of judicial administration concerns to be transformed into constitutional issues. 4 footnotes and 23 references