City filed complaint against state, alleging that proposed legislation that served to amend and enact several statutory provisions governing traffic law photo-monitoring devices violated Home Rule Amendment to state constitution. The Court of Common Pleas denied city summary judgment and granted state summary judgment. City appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- City lacked standing to challenge legislation regarding provision implementing use of speed cameras and mobile photo-monitoring devices;
- City’s traffic camera ordinance was an exercise of police power subject to invalidation; and
- Proposed legislation was a general law.