Legal Opinion

Amaker v. Bd. of Probation & Parole

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 13, 1990No. 15 W.D. Appeal Docket 1989PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIX, Chief Justice.

In the instant appeal we are faced once more with the question of whether the Commonwealth Court properly assessed attorney’s fees for the filing of a frivolous appeal. In Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 524 Pa. 500, 574 A.2d 558 (1990), we determined that an appellate court had the power to assess attorney’s fees against court-appointed counsel who had filed a frivolous appeal. However, for the following reasons, we find that the appeal brought before the Commonwealth Court in this case was not frivolous, and we reverse the Order of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rivenbark v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Smith v. Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Threats v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLESupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Keough v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Nicastro v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ChmielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Robinson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Menna v. St. Agnes Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Thornton v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLESupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Booth v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

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

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

Powered by the Exa API