Legal Opinion

Curtis v. Cleland

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 11, 1991No. 46 T.D. 1988PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CRAIG, President Judge.

The salient issue in this case is whether the use of “IV-D” funds as bonus income for employees of the Domestic Relations Division (DRD) requires county salary board approval. The board consists basically of the three county commissioners and the county controller. Section 1622 of the County Code, Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, as amended, 16 P.S. § 1622; the president judge of the common pleas court also sits as a member of the county salary board, but only when court employee positions or salaries are at issue. 16 P.S. §§ 1625(b) and (c).

This declaratory judgment…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Leahey v. FarrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. McCarthy v. Township of McCandlessCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. County of Allegheny v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Bar Ass'n v. ThornburghCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. South Whitehall Township v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Robinson v. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. In re Domestic Relations Hearing RoomCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Lancaster County v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Davis, Murphy, Niemiec & Smith v. McNettCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. In re Domestic Relations Hearing RoomCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API