# Jacobs v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 10, 2016 · 635 Pa. 449

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4970529

## Case

- **Full name:** Kevin E. JACOBS v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW (BRIDGEVIEW PARTNERS). Petition of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 10, 2016
- **Citations:** 635 Pa. 449; 137 A.3d 1260; 2016 Pa. LEXIS 983; 2016 WL 2658606
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Saylor
- **Judges:** Dougherty, Files, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 2 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/4970529

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing a decision for the Commonwealth Court because “it substituted its own assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses for that of the Unemployment Compensation Review Board[].”

## Opinion text

Chief Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
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, 628 Pa. 13 , 102 A.3d 421, 421-22 (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, 509 Pa. 267 , 501 A.2d 1383 (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. -.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4970529. Public record. Not legal advice.