Title: Mayer v. Garman, III (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[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.