Curley v. Wetzel

82 A.3d 418, 623 Pa. 226, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 3014
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 17, 2013·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2013, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. By this Order, this Court does not embrace the Commonwealth Court’s view that this action sounds in mandamus or that a six-month statute of limitations applies to actions in mandamus in this context.

Chief Justice CASTILLE files a Concurring Statement in which Justice EAKIN joins.

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

Curley v. Wetzel, 82 A.3d 418, 623 Pa. 226, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 3014 (Pa. 2013).

82 A.3d 418 (Curley v. Wetzel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

W.E. Mitwalli v. PA DOC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
R. Young, Jr. v. PA DOC & Lancaster County Clerk of Courts
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
J.A. Bahret v. PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
Dougherty v. Pa. State Police of Pa.
138 A.3d 152 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
K. Roberto v. PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
B.J. Snow v. PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
K. Dodgson v. PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
A.W. McElyea v. PSP
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016
J. Taylor v. The PSP of the Commonwealth of PA
132 A.3d 590 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Dunnavant, G.
107 A.3d 29 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)