Opinion

Steffy v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

  • 499 Pa. 367
  • 453 A.2d 591
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 17, 1982
Status
Published
Author
Flaherty
On the bench
Brien, Files, Flaherty, Hutchinson, Larsen, McDermott, Nix, Roberts
Cited by
27 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.2%

The opinion

FLAHERTY, Justice,

concurring.

I join the majority opinion based upon my Concurring Opinion in Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ceja, 493 Pa. 588, 619 , 427 A.2d 631, 647 (1981): “Our common law and statutory law recognize certain exceptions to the hearsay rule, and these exceptions could well be the subject of a degree of relaxation in an administrative type of adjudication. In this regard the hearing officer should be in a position to determine whether hearsay evidence which would constitute an exception to the hearsay rule should be admissible notwithstanding the absence of proper qualification. It might well be wise to permit the hearing officer to determine whether this type of hearsay evidence is ‘reliable.’ In addition, reports, opinions, and statements of charge submitted by licensed professionals could be an exception.” (Emphasis in original).

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.