Mackie, Edwin Gordon, (1896–30 Aug. 1980), Hon. Ophthalmic Surgeon, United Sheffield Hospitals; Ophthalmic Medical Referee to County Courts

Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
William E. Nelson

This chapter shows that, in the absence of bureaucratic institutions, courts were the primary institutions by which central political authorities could enforce law and policy in localities. The courts, in turn, were local institutions under local control in every colony except, perhaps, Pennsylvania. In many colonies juries that determined both law and fact used their power to nullify legislation and other commands of central government. In other colonies, county courts were self-perpetuating bodies whose judges felt free to ignore the commands of appellate courts and other central authorities. Other colonies were so small that power was necessarily local in nature. Pennsylvania was the only large colony in which the Supreme Court controlled the work of lower courts, but its authority was also under challenge.


1932 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
William Shepard
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-90
Author(s):  
Carlton F.W. Larson

This chapter explains that between the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the creation of firmly established civilian courts, Pennsylvania experienced a long, chaotic interregnum punctuated by the British invasion and occupation of Philadelphia. Although Pennsylvania’s radical new government enacted a treason statute, punishment of disloyalty continued to rest with extrajudicial entities, including committees of safety and the military. The scope of military jurisdiction was seriously debated. County courts slowly reopened and began hearing cases of misprision of treason (a lesser charge), but no cases of high treason were heard. Faced with the threat of military invasion, the Assembly’s controversial suspension of habeas corpus led to the exile of prominent Quakers to Virginia in 1777, accompanied by vigorous debate over the propriety and legality of this action


Author(s):  
J. R. Spencer
Keyword(s):  

1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 73-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Silverstein

This paper examines the extent to which Pennsylvania county courts are prepared to implement the judicial bypass provision of the state's abortion statute. Under the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act it is illegal for physicians to perform abortions on pregnant minors without parental consent. The constitutionality of this requirement has been upheld, but only when states provide a mechanism allowing a minor to bypass parental involvement. The Pennsylvania statute includes a judicial bypass provision that is formally consistent with legal precedent. However, based on a study of how county courts respond to inquiries into the judicial bypass procedure, this paper demonstrates that most courthouses are not prepared to implement or provide accurate information on bypass proceedings. Since the constitutionality of parental involvement requirements is conditioned on the availability of a bypass option, the paper argues that the courts' lack of readiness poses a significant threat to the rights of pregnant minors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document