Case Name: Al FLORA, Jr., and Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. LUZERNE COUNTY of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in his Official Capacity, Respondents; Al Flora, Jr., and Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in his Official Capacity, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2015-06-30
Citations: 118 A.3d 385
Docket Number: 
Parties: Al FLORA, Jr., and Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. LUZERNE COUNTY of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in his Official Capacity, Respondents. Al Flora, Jr., and Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in his Official Capacity, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 118
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
Al FLORA, Jr., and Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. LUZERNE COUNTY of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in his Official Capacity, Respondents. Al Flora, Jr., and Adam Kuren and Steven Allabaugh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in his Official Capacity, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
June 30, 2015.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal.is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:
(1) In a matter of first impression, do petitioners state a claim for constructive denial of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, based on chronic and systemic deficiencies in the operation .of Luzerne County's Office of the Public Defender that deprive them and the class they seek to represent of their right to effective assistance of counsel? See Pa. R.A.P. 1114(b)(3), (4).
(2) Do Petitioners state a claim of mandamus to compel Respondents to provide adequate funding for Lu-zerne County's Office of the. Public Defender, as required by the Commonwealth's Public Defender Act, 16 . Pa. Cons.Stat. .§§ 9960.1-9960.13 (hereinafter the "Public Defender Act")? See Pa. R.A.P. 1114(b)(2).