MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MONONGAHELA v. Carroll Township Authority

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MONONGAHELA v. Carroll Township Authority

788 A.2d 356, 567 Pa. 490, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 108

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 22, 2002·No. Appeal 14 WAP 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

And now, this 22nd day of January, 2002, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. We specifically state that we do not adopt the rationale of the Commonwealth Court. See Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 578, 673 A.2d 898, 904 (1996). Furthermore, we note that it appears that 42 Pa.C.S. § 7319(3), read in conjunction with 42 Pa.C.S. § 7304(a), dictates that venue for appeals from arbitration awards lies with the trial court that initially ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. However, the issue of the applicability of § 7319(3) to this matter was waived via a concession made by Appellees before the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. See Allegheny County CCP, tr. dated 1/25/1999, at 12. Thus, we are unable to explore the parameters of § 7319(3) by way of a full opinion.

Former Chief Justice FLAHERTY did not participate in the decision of this case.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

And now, this 22nd day of January, 2002, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. We specifically state that we do not adopt the rationale of the Commonwealth Court. See Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 578, 673 A.2d 898, 904 (1996). Furthermore, we note that it appears that 42 Pa.C.S. § 7319(3), read in conjunction with 42 Pa.C.S. § 7304(a), dictates that venue for appeals from arbitration awards lies with the trial court that initially ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. However, the issue of the applicability of § 7319(3) to this matter was waived via a concession made by Appellees before the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. See Allegheny County CCP, tr. dated 1/25/1999, at 12. Thus, we are unable to explore the parameters of § 7319(3) by way of a full opinion.

Former Chief Justice FLAHERTY did not participate in the decision of this case.

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MONONGAHELA v. Carroll Township Authority, 788 A.2d 356, 567 Pa. 490, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 108 (Pa. 2002).

Pincite

788 A.2d 356 (MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MONONGAHELA v. Carroll Township Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related