Court Opinion

ID: 9762008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:07:34.174127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.138927
License: Public Domain

Concureing Opinion by
Me. Justice Nix:
I agree with the reasoning and concur in the result reached by the majority. The expression of intent of the legislature that distribution of the fund recovered under the Wrongful Death Act of 18551 be distributed in accordance with the manner provided for distribution in the event of intestacy2 is unmistakably clear. I am forced to take issue with the suggestion by the dissent that we are “faced with two clear alternatives”. There is no ambiguity to resolve, the legislative mandate is not only clear, but grounded upon sound policy.*5243 In my view, the earlier cases upon which the dissent now relies4 represent unwarranted and unjustified intrusions by the judicial branch into the domain properly within the purview of the legislative branch of government. .1 believe these cases were improperly decided and should not be given precedential value.
Mr. Justice Mandeeino joins in this concurring opinion.

 Act of April 26, 1855, P. U. 309, §1, as amended, 12 P.S. §1602.

 Act of April 24, 1947, P. L. 80, §2, as amended, 20 P.S. §1.2.

 These reasons have been fully and accurately stated in the opinion of the majority. Interestingly, the dissent apparently did not accept the constitutional claims proffered by the appellant

 Lehigh Iron Co. v. Rupp, 100 Pa. 95 (1882) ; Lewis v. Hunlock’s Creek & Muhlenberg, 203 Pa. 511, 53 A. 349 (1902). See also, Siidekum v. Animal Rescue League, 353 Pa. 408, 45 A. 2d 59 (1946).

 Act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 309, §1, as amended, 12 P.S. §1602.