Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Larocca v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 31, 1991No. 254 C.D. 1990Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partByer, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusions that the decision of a single judge on a question of subject matter jurisdiction is binding on the court when it later considers the merits and that section 211 of our Internal Operating Procedures is valid. Because the existence of this invalid internal operating procedure resulted' in personnel of our court giving Ms. Larocca instructions which I believe were incorrect, I would hold that the untimeliness of the appeal was caused by a breakdown in the judicial process. Therefore, I would not dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Kuchinic v. McCrorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Burke v. Pittsburgh Limestone Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  4. Vann v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Potomac Passengers Association v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975

10 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