MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MONONGAHELA v. Carroll Township Authority
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
And now, this 22nd day of January, 2002, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. We specifically state that we do not adopt the rationale of the Commonwealth Court. See Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 578, 673 A.2d 898, 904 (1996). Furthermore, we note that it appears that 42 Pa.C.S. § 7319(3), read in conjunction with 42 Pa.C.S. § 7304(a), dictates that venue for appeals from arbitration awards lies with the trial court that initially ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. However, the issue of the applicability of § 7319(3) to this matter was waived via a concession…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. TilghmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
4Cited by3 opinions
- Legal Access Plans v. Millinghausen, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
- Legal Access Plans v. Millinghausen, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
- Mikkilineni v. Indiana County CommissionersCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009