Court Opinion

ID: 9805785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:17:02.061955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:12.955626
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s summary disposition of this case on the allocatur docket. The Court’s Internal Operating Procedures require that “[a] -per curiam order granting allowance of appeal and reversing an order of the lower court must cite to controlling legal authority or provide a full explanation of the reasons for reversal.” Supreme Court IOP § 6(B). The rule is plainly intended to provide litigants with a reasonably developed explanation as to why the Court is exercising its discretion to disturb the status quo attained in an as-of-right direct appeal. In this regard, the majority’s mere citation to a general legal principle, without any attempt to explain how that principle applies to the particular facts under review, is facially deficient.
Absent a citation to directly controlling authority involving an analogous paradigm, this Court should, at most, grant the request for allocatur and consider the merits upon full briefing by the parties.
Justice TODD joins this dissenting statement.