Legal Opinion · Dissent

Weinberg v. Commonwealth, State Board of Examiners of Public Accountants

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 27, 1985Published

1DissentPapadakos, Justice

While I agree that the equitable doctrine of laches may be asserted against the Commonwealth in an administrative disciplinary proceeding by a licensing board, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Harold Weinberg (Appellee) failed to meet his burden of proving laches.

Appellee’s burden was to demonstrate that the State Board of Examiners of Public Accountants (Board) was guilty of want of due diligence in failing to institute its action to Appellee’s prejudice. Class of Two Hundred Administrative Faculty Members v. Scanlon, 502 Pa. 275, 466 A.2d 103 (1983).

As we stated in Scanlon, the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Leedom v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Class of Two Hundred Administrative Faculty Members v. ScanlonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Weinberg v. Commonwealth, State Board of Examiners of Public AccountantsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API