When the Commonwealth Court filed its highly anticipated en banc ruling invalidating as unconstitutional the zoning-related amendments to the state’s Oil and Gas Act July 26, the majority opinion included a somewhat curious footnote.
“While the majority of the en banc panel voted to grant petitioners’ motion for summary relief regarding counts I-III, because of a recusal, the vote of the remaining commissioned judges on those counts resulted in a tie, requiring that this opinion be filed pursuant to Section 256(b) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Commonwealth Court,” the footnote read.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
