Brentwood Borough School District v.
Held – Pa. Supreme Court – June 20, 2016
There are two kinds of per curiam affirmances
adopting the opinion below -- thereby
signaling the Court’s approval of the mandate and adoption of the reasoning of
the court below, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Greene, 81 A.3d 829 (Pa. 2013), and
affirming only the order below. In these
cases, the Court offers neither approval nor disapproval of the reasoning
below; the Court either agrees with the mandate, or at a minimum, is
unconvinced the appellant has made a sufficient showing to disturb that result.
See Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 673 A.2d 898, 904 (Pa. 1996) (when Court issues
per curiam affirmance, “[u]nless we indicate that the opinion of the lower
tribunal is affirmed per curiam, our order is not to be interpreted as adopting
the rationale employed by the lower tribunal in reaching its final
disposition”) (emphasis in original).