(We call him that because he went to a 4th tier law school down in Texas when he couldn't get admitted to any law school in Pennsylvania.)
Dante Pellegrini was the law solicitor for the City of Pittsburgh until he was elected to Commonwealth Court back in 1990. He's now President Judge of Commonwealth Court. Back in the 90's, when I was teaching Trial Advocacy, he accepted my invitation to sit as judge in the law students' mock trial competitions. He was so great at sitting down with the students post trial and answering their questions and generally encouraging them. And it was such an exciting and valuable experience to them to argue their cases before an appellate level judge, instead of some local lawyer or another law professor! A lot of flop sweat goin' on.

"The ruling has political implications, as it ratchets up pressure on Corbett to join the governors of other states who have decided to expand Medicaid coverage for the working [/b]poor under the Affordable Care Act. Corbett has rejected that option, saying expanded Medicaid coverage would cost the state too much in the long run, but he has left the door open, saying he needed more information from Obama administration officials.

"Democrats who have criticized Corbett for not expanding Medicaid celebrated Tuesday's court ruling. (Newly elected Democrat)State Treasurer Rob McCord, who in his official capacity is a defendant in the suit, called the ruling a "victory for Pennsylvania's working poor."

"I believe that this ruling should force Gov. Corbett and his administration to reconsider their ill-advised decision to refuse federal support for Medicaid expansion," said McCord, one of a number of Democrats considering a run for the party's gubernatorial nomination in 2014.

I sure hope the people themselves vote Corbett out come election day. With the changing of voting districts I don't hold much hope of changing the legislature but there is still hope for the very top.

"PA Supreme Court Overturns Zoning Provisions of Act 13"

How I'm looking forward to reading that headline one of these mornings, and imagining Corbutt's face when he reads it!

Background: In Pennsylvania there are three tiers of courts. Trial court, Intermediate Appellate Courts (Superior or Commonwealth) and Supreme Court.

"A Pennsylvania appellate court panel struck down provisions in a new law regulating the state's booming natural gas industry that opponents said would leave municipalities defenseless to protect homeowners, parks and schools from being surrounded by drilling sites or waste pits. The decision was a defeat for Gov. Tom Corbett and the natural gas industry, which had long sought the limitations, and a prompt appeal to the state Supreme Court was expected."

The state Commonwealth Court ruled 4-3 in a decision released Thursday that the limitations in the so-called Act 13 violated the state constitution. The opinion's author, President Judge Dan Pellegrini, said the provisions upended the municipal zoning rules that had previously been followed by other property owners, unfairly exposing them to harm.

"If the commonwealth-proffered reasons are sufficient, then the Legislature could make similar findings requiring coal portals, tipples, washing plants, limestone and coal strip mines, steel mills, industrial chicken farms, rendering plants and fireworks plants in residential zones for a variety of police powers advancing those interests in their development," Pellegrini wrote.

What is really encouraging is that 2 of the judges on the en banc panel who joined Pellegrini in opposing the frackers were Republicans! Corbett's pro-fracking actions are so outrageous, even Republican judges voted against him!

Let's hope the same holds true with the PA. Supreme Court, which is currently evenly divided between 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats, pending the resignation/dismissal of recently convicted felon, GOP Supreme Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin. I'm hoping she holds true to form and refuses to graciously resign, forcing a long, drawn-out legislative process to remove her, and another drawn out process for the state senate to confirm Corbett's appointed replacement for Melvin, thus keeping the court split 4/4. If the Supreme Court is evenly divided in an opinion, the appellate court's decision is sustained.
Take that, Corbett! No 24/7 operating well pads, waste pits or processing stations next to our hospitals, schools, residential neighborhoods, downtown streets!

I know you know this, but other readers may NOT understand what Commonwealth Court is and how it operates. Most states do NOT have a dual court system anymore, but Pennsylvania re-invented it with the 1968 State Constitution. In the 1968 State Constitution, Commonwealth Court was created NOT only to hear appellant court cases, but also trial court cases involving the State. Previously to the creation of Commonwealth court, cases involving the state were heard by the Common Pleas Court of Dauphin County (Where the State Capital is located) even if the dispute involved state action elsewhere in the state.

Thus since the adoption of the 1968 State Constitution, in disputes with the State or one of its Political entities, it is Commonwealth Court that has sole Jurisdiction over the case NOT Common Pleas Court which are the trial courts in all other matters.

You can see this at the Commonwealth Court web site (Which this opinion is NOT yet posted on), some are one Judge decisions, i.e. Trial Court decisions, other are 3 or more judge decisions, or the "intermediate" Appellant court.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the final court of appeals, but like the US Supreme Court can select which cases it wants to review. Thus the final court of appeal of right (I.e. the RIGHT to have an appellant court review the decision of the Trial Court) is the "Intermediate" court of appeals, in this case a Three to 15 Judge panel of the Commonwealth Court itself.

Thus this decision by ONE Commonwealth Court Judge can be reviewed by a Panel of other Commonwealth Court Judges. The Judge in this case acted as a Trial Judge, the Panel will review his decision as any appellant court would, to make sure no mistake as to law was made.

Commonwealth Court Opinion (The opinion being cited is NOT yet posted on the official site):
http://www.pacourts.us/courts/commonwealth-court/court-opinions/

But the bottom line is that the next step for the fracking/zoning case, (which was heard en banc by a panel of 7 judges) to which I referred would be an appeal to the PA Supreme Court. Good question as to the next step for a trial heard in Commonwealth Court by a single judge. According to this description from the court's website:

"The Commonwealth Court was established in 1968 and is unique to Pennsylvania. It is one of Pennsylvania's two statewide intermediate appellate courts. The Commonwealth Court is primarily responsible for legal matters involving state and local governments and regulatory agencies. It also acts as a trial court when lawsuits are filed by or against the Commonwealth. Cases are generally heard by panels of three judges in Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, although, on occasion, they may choose to hold court in other locations. Cases may also be heard by a single judge or by en banc panels of seven judges.
The Court is responsible for:

Original civil actions brought by and against the Commonwealth
Appeals from decisions made by state agencies and the Courts of Common Pleas"
________________________________________________________________________________
When interpreting the law, the principle which applies is: expressio unious est exclusio alterius, which translates from the Latin to: The express mention of one thing excludes all others, i.e, when items are listed, anything not explicitly states is assumed to not be included.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legal_Latin_terms

Note that the description says the Commonwealth Court hears appeals ONLY from decisions made by state agencies and the Courts of Common Pleas, and NOT appeals from Commonwealth Court decisions. Therefore, an appeal from a single-judge, Commonwealth Court decision would go directly to the PA Supreme Court. However, to be sure of my interpretation, I just called the administrative office of the Commonwealth Court. The fellow who answered tried to be helpful, but didn't know the answer to my question, and explained that the Harrisburg area is currently being "hammered" by the storm and hardly anyone had made it into the office. I left a message and request for a callback with someone in the legal department, and will post an update on this thread when I get an answer.

(And I know, these legal fine points are TMI for a lot of people.)

They looked up the case for me and explained that it was a case of original jurisdiction, with a "MD" number, for Miscellaneous Docket, and that it was indeed a single judge decision. These case opinions will not be published on their website, unless someone requests that the opinion be published, in which case it will go up on the website. I learned that it does not have to be one of the parties who requests this, so perhaps some enterprising journalist will put in a request.

I was also told that if an appeal was taken from this case, it would go directly to the state Supreme Court. So now we wait to see whether Corbett will take an appeal.

Picture Judge Pellegrini as Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry, facing down One-Term Tom Corbett:
“You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?”

Or, "Gonna take an appeal, Tom? Go ahead. Make my day!"

There is still some hope for my state!

to remove a Governor from office? First the Michigan Governor acting like a tyrant and now this guy. Is there anyway for state citizens by petition, to call for a referendum to change their State Constitutions if there is no way by law to check abuses of power by tyrants like this? Can the people do that?

... you pass 'em, we'll shoot 'em down. What a waste of energy.

-- Mal