Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that former § 1506 was unconstitutional under Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the statute did not provide the Gaming Board with definite standards, policies and limitations to guide its decision-making with regard to zoning issues
• indicating that the contents of a bill and its title are two separate considerations when determining constitutionality under Article III, Section 3
• recognizing “the General Assembly’s clear and expressly stated intention that the invalidity of any provisions of the Act ‘shall not affect other provisions or applications[.]’ ”
• unifying subject of \regulation of gaming\ was sufficient to satisfy Article III, Section 3's single subject requirement
• offering that this constitutional provision “sets forth dual mandates for the General Assembly which prohibit the passing of a bill that contains more than one subject and requires that the subject be clearly expressed in its title”
• severing provisions of gaming act that were not germane to single subject and “clearly not essentially and inseparably connected with the rest of the Act”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).