# Kindle v. COM., ST. BD. OF NURSE EXAM.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 6, 1986 · 512 Pa. 44

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754543

## Case

- **Full name:** Kathryn A. KINDLE, R.N., Appellee, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, STATE BOARD OF NURSE EXAMINERS, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, Department of State, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 6, 1986
- **Citations:** 512 Pa. 44; 515 A.2d 1342; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 871
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Dermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9754543

## Opinion text

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority correctly concludes that if the doctrine of laches is not raised at the administrative level it is waived. It recognizes that even if it might sometimes be fruitless to argue to an administrative body that its actions were barred by delay, we should not allow the parties to avoid the general principle that all issues must be raised at the earliest possible time to avoid waiver. Inexplicably, it then artifically avoids the consequences of that conclusion.
Applied to the facts before us, the majority’s reasoning should result in a holding that the laches issue has been waived. Therefore, I cannot agree with the majority’s mandate. In Weinberg v. State Board of Examiners, 509 Pa. 239 , 501 A.2d 143 (1985), we stated that allowing a party to plead laches in an administrative proceeding was part of a “consistent body of case law in Commonwealth Court.” 509 Pa. at 151, 501 A.2d at 244. Nevertheless, the majority permits this appellee to claim surprise. I fail to grasp that reasoning. In the face of a “consistent body of case law in Commonwealth Court,” appellee was charged with notice that the laches issue could be raised below. So charged, she failed to raise it. That failure would have resulted in a waiver under any ordinary application of the term. I would remand the case to Commonwealth Court only for disposition of the remaining issues in the case.
NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, J., join in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754543. Public record. Not legal advice.