Harmon v. Mifflin Cnty. Sch. Dist., 696 A.2d 805 (Pa. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Harmon v. Mifflin Cnty. Sch. Dist., 696 A.2d 805 (Pa. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wertz v. Chapman Township (pacommwct, 1998-02-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see, e.g." Wertz v. Chapman Township (4×)
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Harmon v. Mifflin County School Dist., 684 A.2d 651 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996)(en banc), appeal denied, appeal granted in part, 548 Pa. 227 , 696 A.2d 805 (1997) (whether the lower court commits harmless error is a question for appellate review designed to advance judicial economy by obviating the necessity for a retrial where the appellate court is convinced that an error was harmless).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Terry L. Harmon
v.
Mifflin County School District, (Two Cases).
Nos. 0716, 0717 Middle District Allocatur Docket 1996.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 15, 1997.
696 A.2d 805
Lester H. Zimmerman, Jr., Lewistown, for Petitioner.
Newman.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 1997, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is denied.

NEWMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 1997, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED but LIMITED to the following issues:

(1) Is there substantial evidence supporting Petitioner’s discharge for improper conduct?
(2) If the Commonwealth Court properly held that substantial evidence supports Petitioner’s discharge, should it have remanded the case to the trial court to address Petitioner’s estoppel argument?

NEWMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Lead Opinion

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 1997, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is denied.

NEWMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. *Page 228

Addendum

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 1997, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED but LIMITED to the following issues:

(1) Is there substantial evidence supporting Petitioner's discharge for improper conduct?

(2) If the Commonwealth Court properly held that substantial evidence supports Petitioner's discharge, should it have remanded the case to the trial court to address Petitioner's estoppel argument?

NEWMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.