Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board

700 A.2d 1261, 549 Pa. 169, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2049

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

DocketPetition and Cross Petition No. 400 M.D. Allocatur Docket

StatusPublished

This text of 700 A.2d 1261 (Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board, 700 A.2d 1261, 549 Pa. 169, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2049 (Pa. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 1997 the petition for allowance of appeal is denied and the cross-petition for allowance of appeal is granted limited to the following issues:

I. “Did the Commonwealth Court correctly rule that the “excess interest” policies of the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board are “interpretative rules” that did not have to be promulgated in accordance with the Commonwealth Documents Law?”

II. Assuming, arguendo, the Board’s “excess interest” policies are determined to be “interpretative rules,” did the Commonwealth Court err in upholding them when these rules are, unwise, violated Legislative intent, constitute an unfair and unreasonable penalty, and work an unjust forfeiture?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 1997 the petition for allowance of appeal is denied and the cross-petition for allowance of appeal is granted limited to the following issues:

I. “Did the Commonwealth Court correctly rule that the “excess interest” policies of the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board are “interpretative rules” that did not have to be promulgated in accordance with the Commonwealth Documents Law?”

II. Assuming, arguendo, the Board’s “excess interest” policies are determined to be “interpretative rules,” did the Commonwealth Court err in upholding them when these rules are, unwise, violated Legislative intent, constitute an unfair and unreasonable penalty, and work an unjust forfeiture?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 A.2d 1261, 549 Pa. 169, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borough-of-pottstown-v-pennsylvania-municipal-retirement-board-pa-1997.