Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Borough of Philipsburg v. Bloom

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 6, 1989No. Appeal 853 C.D. 1987Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Doyle:

I agree with the majority opinion insofar as it resolves the counterclaim pertaining to abuse of process. I respectfully dissent, however, from that portion of the opinion which would reverse the trial court on the issue of the exclusiveness of the arbitration remedy. In this *367matter I would affirm the trial court’s order to grant the police officers’ demurrer.

The police officers contend that they have stated a cause of action under Section 1190 of the Borough Code (Code),1 53 P.S. §46190, by pleading that the Borough improperly furloughed them…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Nolde Bros., Inc. v. Local No. 358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Kraftician v. Borough of CarnegieCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Gruver v. HowellCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Minnick v. Borough of HyndmanCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API