From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bartholomew v. Foster

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 3, 1989
563 A.2d 1390 (Pa. 1989)

Opinion

Argued January 18, 1989.

Decided October 3, 1989. Reargument Denied November 30, 1989.

Appeal Nos. 17-21 M.D. Appeal Docket 1988, from Order of Commonwealth Court entered April 25, 1988, at No. 2551 C.D, 1986, 115 Pa. Commw. 430, 541 A.2d 393.

Jeffrey A. Less, A. Richard Feldman, James J. McCabe, Jr., Jane L. Dalton, Philadelphia, H. Lee Roussel, Harrisburg, Richard DiSalle, Susan Hileman, and Kim D. Eaton, Pittsburgh, for appellants.

David F. Snyder, Harrisburg, for American Ins. Assn., amicus curiae in support of appellant at all Nos.

Jordan Lorence, Cimron Campbell, Washington, D.C., and James N. Clymer, Lancaster, for Concerned Women for America, amicus curiae in support of appellant at all Nos.

John G. Knorr, III and Calvin Koons, Harrisburg, for Constance B. Foster at all Nos.

Stefen Presser, Philadelphia, Deborah A. Ellis, and Rita Bernstein, Philadelphia, for Ann and Craig Bartholomew, et al. at all Nos.

Paul McHale, Bethlehem, for Pa. House of Rep., amicus curiae in support of appellee at all Nos.

Patricia A. Rodgers, Greensburg, for Pa. Fed. of Business Prof. Women's Clubs, Inc., amicus curiae in support of appellee at all Nos.

John S. Summers, Philadelphia, for American Assn. of Univ. Women, amicus curiae in support of appellee at all Nos.

Alaine S. Williams, Philadelphia, for Pa. AFL-CIO, amicus curiae in support of appellee at all Nos.

Seth F. Kreimer and Jeffrey Ivan Pasek, Philadelphia, for American Jewish Congress of Phila., for amicus curiae in support of appellee at all Nos.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and STOUT, JJ.


ORDER


The Court being evenly divided, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.

STOUT, former J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ., dissent.

ORDER


AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 1989, the Application for Reargument is denied.

ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ., dissent and would grant reargument.


Summaries of

Bartholomew v. Foster

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 3, 1989
563 A.2d 1390 (Pa. 1989)
Case details for

Bartholomew v. Foster

Case Details

Full title:Ann and Craig BARTHOLOMEW, on Behalf of their son, Jonathan BARTHOLOMEW…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 3, 1989

Citations

563 A.2d 1390 (Pa. 1989)
563 A.2d 1390

Citing Cases

Barasch v. Public Utility Com'n

The conclusion is therefore inescapable that, within the framework of the relevant factual circumstances…

Williams ex rel. Williams v. School District of Bethlehem, PA

ict's argument that the differences between the sexes increase dramatically through high school, and that by…