The majority opinion states only that there was a judgment under review and that Pennsylvania enacted Act No. 700 during the course of the litigation. That Act was passed by the General Assembly in its 1959 session and approved by the Governor on December 17, 1959. The Court treated the new statute as relevant to the proper disposition of the case. No additional factual background is provided in this majority text.
Issue
Whether the judgment under review should stand when a new Pennsylvania statute, Act No. 700, had been enacted and might affect the case. More specifically, the question was whether further proceedings in the District Court were appropriate in light of that intervening legislation.
Rule
When intervening legislation may affect the validity or posture of a case, the Court may vacate the existing judgment and remand for further proceedings in light of the new statute.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
A federal district court in Pittsburgh entered judgment for Maya Benton in her challenge to a state education regulation. While the case was pending on review, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a new statute that may alter the governing legal framework, but the effect of the statute has not yet been developed in the record.
What is the most appropriate disposition by the reviewing court under the controlling procedural rule?
Explanation. When intervening legislation may affect the validity or posture of a case, the proper course is to vacate the existing judgment and remand for whatever further proceedings are appropriate in light of the new law. The majority opinion does not resolve the merits itself; it sends the case back so the lower court can address the statute's effect. (Derived from School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (n.d.).)