Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Domestic Relations Hearing Room

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 15, 2002Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Senior Judge KELLEY.

I respectfully dissent.

In quashing the instant matter, the Majority states that “[hjaving concluded that the administrative order issued by the trial court in this case is not appealable, we also conclude that the Commissioners in this case can proceed as the county commissioners did in [Curtis v. Cleland, 137 Pa. Cmwlth. 537, 586 A.2d 1029 (1991)], by filing a petition in this court's original jurisdiction [seeking a declaratory judgment].” Majority Opinion at 410. Thus, the Majority acknowledges that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Levine v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Curtis v. ClelandCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Smith v. Springfield Township Board of SupervisorsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Township of East Taylor v. SpankoCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API