Doctors Osteopathic Hospital v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Doctors Osteopathic Hospital v. Commonwealth

347 A.2d 499, 22 Pa. Commw. 41, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3215, 1975 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1277

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 20, 1975

DocketAppeal, No. 1643 C.D. 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 347 A.2d 499 (Doctors Osteopathic Hospital v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doctors Osteopathic Hospital v. Commonwealth, 347 A.2d 499, 22 Pa. Commw. 41, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3215, 1975 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1277 (Pa. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam Opinion,

On February 14, 1974, Doctors Osteopathic Hospital (appellant) filed an appeal from an adverse ruling of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) with the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. By opinion and order dated October 3, 1974, that court dismissed the appeal. On October 7, 1974, appellant petitioned the Erie County court for reargument. However, appellant neither requested nor was granted a stay of the proceedings pending the lower court’s decision on the merits of appellant’s petition. Thereafter, on December 4, 1974, re-argument was denied. The instant appeal was filed with this Court on December 20, 1974, a date beyond the thirty day appeal period (as measured from the date of entry of the lower court’s order dismissing the appeal, or October 3, 1974) mandated by the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970.¹ This factor precipitated the filing of a motion to quash, for untimeliness, by the PLRB.

Our disposition of the motion to quash is clearly controlled by our recent decision in Bucher v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 602, 347 A.2d 497 (1975). There, we were confronted with the question of whether [43]*43the mere filing of a petition for reargument, which is subsequently denied, effects a tolling of the thirty day appeal period. There, we were cognizant of the Supreme Court’s decision in Aleo Parking Corporation v. Pittsburgh, 453 Pa. 245, 307 A.2d 851 (1973), rev’d on other grounds, 417 U. S. 369 (1974), in which the Court held that the granting of a petition for reargument within the thirty day appeal period acted as a tacit stay of the proceedings and, thus, tolled the thirty day appeal period pending a resolution after reargument. Finally, there, we distinguished Aleo and found that neither the Supreme Court’s holding nor its rationale had any application where a petition for reargument is denied. This case is Bucher “revisited,” and it merits identical treatment.

The above appeal is quashed as untimely filed.

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

Per Curiam Opinion,

On February 14, 1974, Doctors Osteopathic Hospital (appellant) filed an appeal from an adverse ruling of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) with the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. By opinion and order dated October 3, 1974, that court dismissed the appeal. On October 7, 1974, appellant petitioned the Erie County court for reargument. However, appellant neither requested nor was granted a stay of the proceedings pending the lower court’s decision on the merits of appellant’s petition. Thereafter, on December 4, 1974, re-argument was denied. The instant appeal was filed with this Court on December 20, 1974, a date beyond the thirty day appeal period (as measured from the date of entry of the lower court’s order dismissing the appeal, or October 3, 1974) mandated by the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970.¹ This factor precipitated the filing of a motion to quash, for untimeliness, by the PLRB.

Our disposition of the motion to quash is clearly controlled by our recent decision in Bucher v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 602, 347 A.2d 497 (1975). There, we were confronted with the question of whether [43]*43the mere filing of a petition for reargument, which is subsequently denied, effects a tolling of the thirty day appeal period. There, we were cognizant of the Supreme Court’s decision in Aleo Parking Corporation v. Pittsburgh, 453 Pa. 245, 307 A.2d 851 (1973), rev’d on other grounds, 417 U. S. 369 (1974), in which the Court held that the granting of a petition for reargument within the thirty day appeal period acted as a tacit stay of the proceedings and, thus, tolled the thirty day appeal period pending a resolution after reargument. Finally, there, we distinguished Aleo and found that neither the Supreme Court’s holding nor its rationale had any application where a petition for reargument is denied. This case is Bucher “revisited,” and it merits identical treatment.

The above appeal is quashed as untimely filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 A.2d 499, 22 Pa. Commw. 41, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3215, 1975 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doctors-osteopathic-hospital-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack