Court Opinion

ID: 9700343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:22:47.517224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:07.615246
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Crumlish, Jr. :
I cannot agree with the majority that the broad scope of review we have exercised in this case arises from the “broad” language of Article Y, Section 9 of the new Constitution of 1968 and the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970. Our broad scope of review stems from the nature of the appeal before us. ■
Certiorari, whether broad or narrow, is a court directed appeal based essentially upon a writ of error by the appellant. In such circumstances, courts often limited review to jurisdictional and procedural errors apparent on the record. The ease before us, however, is not an appeal by writ of error or certiorari.
Article Y, Section 9 and its implementing statutes have provided a right of appeal in this case. Where the Constitution, or the Legislature, if so empowered, has not limited the scope of our review powers, we may not by ourselves apply the strictures of narrow certiorari. As President Judge Keller of the Superior Court-stated in Esakovich v. Groudine, 141 Pa. 365, 376, 14 A. 2d 850, 855 (1940) : “This was a true ‘appeal’, not an appeal in the nature Of a writ of error (Aurentz v. Porter, 48 Pa. 355, 366, Gilmore v. Connellsville Water Co. — Campbell’s Appeal, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 99 — see Act of May 9, 1889, P. L. 158). We have, therefore, the power to consider the -whole matter and dispose of the case as justice requires. Rand v. King, 134 Pa. 641, *597645, 19 A. 806; 2 R.C.L. Appeal and Error, §238, pp. 283, 284; 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, §814, pp. 355, 356, and §1207, p. 709.” Neither Article V, Section 9, nor any of its implementory statutes limits our broad power to “consider the whole matter and dispose of the case as justice requires.” It is for this reason that we do so.
I concur.
Judge Rogers concurs in this opinion.