Opinion

Hall v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

  • 42 A.3d 1204
  • 2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 122
  • 2012 WL 1382525
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Apr 23, 2012
Status
Published
Author
Cohn Jubelirer
On the bench
Cohn Jubelirer, Judge, and Simpson, Judge, and Colins, Senior Judge
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

CONCURRING OPINION BY

Judge COHN JUBELIRER.

I agree with the Majority’s well-reasoned opinion reversing the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and remanding this matter to determine whether Marsha Hall is entitled to *1210 nunc pro tunc relief. I write separately to express my belief that using the phrase “now for then,” even when used in conjunction with the term nunc pro tunc, which is consistently and traditionally used in our case law, will create confusion among litigants. In particular, I do not see how using this term, although it is English rather than Latin, will help pro se litigants, who do not know the law or understand why they did not prevail before the lower tribunal or this Court. The phrase “now for then” does not explain the legal concept of nunc pro tunc relief, or the requirements for obtaining such relief, to a layperson any better than the use of the phrase “nunc pro tunc.”

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.