BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH v. City of Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH v. City of Pittsburgh

957 A.2d 228

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 24, 2008·No. 353 WAL 2007, 354 WAL 2007·Published

Opinion

*229 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW this 24th day of September, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioners, is:

Whether the Commonwealth Court’s opinion conflicts with the Home Rule law’s intent to liberally construe the broad powers provided to those municipalities that adopt Home Rule? More specifically, whether the Commonwealth Court erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling that “The Protection of Displaced Contract Workers Ordinance,” Pittsburgh City Code of Ordinances 22-2004, Chapter 769, Janitorial, Building Maintenance and Security Contractors (“PDCWO”) is ultra vires pursuant to 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(f)?

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

*229 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW this 24th day of September, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioners, is:

Whether the Commonwealth Court’s opinion conflicts with the Home Rule law’s intent to liberally construe the broad powers provided to those municipalities that adopt Home Rule? More specifically, whether the Commonwealth Court erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling that “The Protection of Displaced Contract Workers Ordinance,” Pittsburgh City Code of Ordinances 22-2004, Chapter 769, Janitorial, Building Maintenance and Security Contractors (“PDCWO”) is ultra vires pursuant to 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(f)?

BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH v. City of Pittsburgh, 957 A.2d 228 (Pa. 2008).

Pincite

957 A.2d 228 (BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH v. City of Pittsburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related