Legal Opinion

Denbow v. Borough of Leetsdale

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 8, 1999PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SAYLOR, Justice.

This appeal presents a single issue of first impression: Does Article III, Section 26 of the state Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that “[n]o bill shall be passed giving any extra compensation to any public officer, servant, [or] employe ... after services shall have been rendered or contract made,” operate to prohibit a municipality from granting raises to municipal employees who are already covered by an employment contract?

On December 30, 1991, Appellee, the Borough of Leetsdale (the “Borough”), through the Borough Council (the “Council”), entered into…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Retirement Board v. McGovernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Cleaver v. Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  4. Kline v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. Shirk v. Lancaster CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Naylor v. Township of HellamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Buckwalter v. Borough of PhoenixvilleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Pocono Mountain Charter School v. Pocono Mountain School DistrictDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Pa. Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  5. Commonwealth, Office of Attorney General v. East Brunswick TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

15 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