Court Opinion

ID: 4089557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-14 03:34:57.71649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:12:56.756808
License: Public Domain

ORDER
 

  PER CURIAM
 

  AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
 

  a. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in its analysis under this Court’s decisions and accepted judicial practices relating to statutory construction when it construed the intent of the General Assembly by using terms from federal legislation despite express language in the Pennsylvania statute that the Pennsylvania statute is the exclusive law to be applied when granting veterans’ preference, when Commonwealth Court construed a term not applicable to the case before it and analyzed legislative intent utilizing the wrong date that the term was added to the Pennsylvania legislation, and when Commonwealth Court quoted the language of the federal statute incorrectly and then used that erroneous language to determine legislative intent?
 

  b. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred when it determined that prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases requiring a reasonable relation between military training and service, which is the basis for awarding veterans’ preference, and the preference awarded to soldiers in selection for employment in public positions in the Com
   
   *774
   
  monwealth, are limited to facial challenges to veterans’ preference and do not apply to as-applied challenges to veterans’ preference?