Opinion

McCann v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

  • 723 A.2d 246
  • 1998 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 901
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 11, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Leadbetter
On the bench
Colins, Doyle, Friedman, Leadbetter, McGinley, Pellegrini, Smith
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.5%

The opinion

LEADBETTER, Judge,

dissenting.

I join fully in the majority’s well-reasoned analysis of the applicable law concerning the Board’s exposure to liability for fees, costs and sanctions under the various rules of appellate procedure. I must respectfully dissent, however, from the imposition of fees in this ease.

It is a long-established principle that an appellate court may affirm a decision on a different ground than that relied upon by the tribunal under review. In re Class Action Appeal of Mackey, 687 A.2d 1186 , 1189 n. 8 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Bell Atlantic Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Borough of Baldwin, 677 A.2d 363 , 367 n. 2 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).

The Board, in its role as advocate in this case, did no more than urge this court to affirm on other grounds, a position frequently taken by appellees. I see nothing vexatious nor obdurate in an appellee’s making such an argument, and I would not distinguish in this regard between the Board and an appellee which was an advocate at all stages of the proceedings. Accordingly, I would not impose sanctions in this case.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.