Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bowman v. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOUR.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 18, 1997No. 67 M.D. Appeal Docket 1996Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCappy, Justice

I concur with the majority that the Commonwealth Court should not have reversed the Civil Service Commission. I dissent, however, from the majority’s decision to uphold the Commission’s ruling, which effectively reduces appellate review of administrative decisions to a rubber stamp. That *71result is incompatible with the Administrative Agency Law and our past decisions. Instead, the case should be remanded.

According to the majority, in an appeal from an agency decision, the reviewing court’s function ends once it finds a single, substantive item of evidence that supports the decision below.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Peak v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. State College Area School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Page's Department Store v. VelardiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API