Court Opinion

ID: 9754167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:47:14.458845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:50.092692
License: Public Domain

Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
The allocatur stage is normally reserved for making the threshold determination of whether to grant discretionary review. See Supreme Court IOP § 5C. Here, however, the majority undertakes merits review at the allocatur stage and enters an order dispositive of factual and legal matters in this case. It does so without the benefit of briefs or, at the very least, an answer from the respondent, and overlooks a substantial defect in the Petition for Allowance of Appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the questions presented for review).
I maintain the concern that the Court should exercise greater restraint at the discretionary review stage. Cf. Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Henry, 607 Pa. 94, 4 A.3d 153 (Pa.2010) (Saylor, J., dissenting); County of Berks v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local Union No. 129, 600 Pa. 128, 129-31, 963 A.2d 1272, 1272-73 (2009) (Saylor, J., dissenting). While the sentí*271ment appears to prevail that this type of error-review case does not warrant full briefing and ordinary consideration by this Court on the appeal docket, I remain of the view that shortcutting such process is not a tenable alternative in the absence of concretely established facts and clearly and directly applicable law. Cf. id; Supreme Court TOP § 3(B)(5).