# Jacob, K. v. UCBR of: UCBR

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3202250

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 10, 2016
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** per curiam
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3202250

## Opinion text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

KEVIN E. JACOBS : No. 57 MAL 2016
:
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
v. : the Published Opinion and Order of
: the Commonwealth Court at No. 484
: CD 2015, at 129 A.3d 639 (Pa. Cmwlth.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION : 2015) (Pellegrini, P.J., Leavitt, Covey,
BOARD OF REVIEW (BRIDGEVIEW : JJ.), exited December 21, 2015,
PARTNERS) : reversing the Order of the
: Unemployment Compensation Board of
: Review at No. B-576053 exited March
PETITION OF: UNEMPLOYMENT : 11, 2015
COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW :

DISSENTING STATEMENT

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR FILED: May 10, 2016

I respectfully dissent from the merits-based disposition of this case, since per

curiam reversals at the allocatur stage are problematic. See, e.g., DARLINGTON, ET AL.,

20 PENNSYLVANIA APPELLATE PRACTICE §1122:1 (2015-2016 ed.) (commenting on this

“unusual” practice as being contrary to the appellate rules and depriving the parties of

the opportunity to brief and argue the issues). Such orders are appropriate under

limited circumstances, see 210 Pa. Code §63.6(B); Commonwealth v. Maurer, 102 A.3d

421, 421-22 (Pa. 2014) (Saylor, J., dissenting), and the litigants should be afforded a

reasonably developed explanation for the reversal of the intermediate appellate court’s

rationale.

I do not believe that the majority’s citation to generic constructs concerning the

UCBR’s status as fact-finder and the need for appellate deference on questions of
credibility, without a discussion of the particular facts of this case, fulfills this objective.

Indeed, the case upon which the majority relies, Peak v. UCBR, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa.

1985), is factually distinguishable and, thus, does not constitute directly controlling

authority under an analogous paradigm. Accordingly, this Court should, at most, grant

the request for allocatur and consider the merits upon full briefing by the parties.

Justice Dougherty joins this dissenting statement.

[57 MAL 2016] - 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3202250. Public record. Not legal advice.