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

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

DocketAppeal 14 WAP 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 788 A.2d 356 (MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MONONGAHELA v. Carroll Township Authority) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

788 A.2d 356, 567 Pa. 490, 2002 Pa. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/municipal-authority-of-the-city-of-monongahela-v-carroll-township-pa-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack