Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1937–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'ngreen2 sentences2026(Id. at 38a (internal quotation marks omitted).) The trial court reasoned that [w]hen an arbitration award “depends upon fact-finding or upon interpretation of the [CBA], we apply the extreme standard of deference applicable to Act 111 awards. . . .” P[a.] State Police v. P[a.] State Troopers Ass’n, 840 A.2d 1059, 1062 (Pa. [Cmwlth.] [] 2004). [Grievant’s] grievance requested a remedy. 2026Police Ass’n, 303 A.3d 248 , 255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (citations omitted). “[W]here [an arbitration award] depends upon fact-finding or upon interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, we apply the extreme standard of deference applicable to Act 111 awards; that is, we are bound by the arbitrator’s determination of these matters even though we may find them to be incorrect.” Pa. State Police, 840 A.2d at 1062 . | 3 | 7 |
City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1green2 sentences2016See City of [Phila. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, 768 A.2d 291, 294 (Pa. 2001)] [applying plenary review to the legal question of jurisdiction—whether an issue was encompassed in the demand for arbitration, or could lawfully be raised on the first day of the arbitration hearing—but deferring to the arbitrator’s determination that she did not exceed her power based upon her interpretation of the CBA]; compare City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 764 A.2d 101, 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) . . . [deferential standard] with Borough of Morrisville v. Morrisv 2004See City of Philadelphia [applying plenary review to the legal question of jurisdiction — whether an issue was encompassed in the demand for arbitration, or could lawfully be raised on the first day of the arbitration hearing— but deferring to the arbitrator’s determination that she did not exceed her power based upon her interpretation of the CBA]; compare City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 764 A.2d 101, 103 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), alloc. denied, 566 Pa. 650 , 781 A.2d 148 (2001) *1063 [deferential standard] with Borough of Morrisville v. Morrisville Borough Poli | 2 | 2 |
Borough of Morrisville v. Morrisville Borough Police Benevolent Ass'ngreen2 sentences2016See City of [Phila. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, 768 A.2d 291, 294 (Pa. 2001)] [applying plenary review to the legal question of jurisdiction—whether an issue was encompassed in the demand for arbitration, or could lawfully be raised on the first day of the arbitration hearing—but deferring to the arbitrator’s determination that she did not exceed her power based upon her interpretation of the CBA]; compare City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 764 A.2d 101, 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) . . . [deferential standard] with Borough of Morrisville v. Morrisv 2004See City of Philadelphia [applying plenary review to the legal question of jurisdiction — whether an issue was encompassed in the demand for arbitration, or could lawfully be raised on the first day of the arbitration hearing— but deferring to the arbitrator’s determination that she did not exceed her power based upon her interpretation of the CBA]; compare City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 764 A.2d 101, 103 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), alloc. denied, 566 Pa. 650 , 781 A.2d 148 (2001) *1063 [deferential standard] with Borough of Morrisville v. Morrisville Borough Poli | 2 | 2 |
City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5green2 sentences2025City of Phila[.] v. Fraternal Ord[.] of Police Lodge No. 5, 932 A.2d 274 (Pa. Cmwlth. [2007]), [aff’d, 985 A.2d 1259 (2009)]; [Pa.] State Police. 2020City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 (Breary), 932 A.2d 274, 280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (providing that where resolution of an issue “depends upon fact-finding or upon the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, we apply the extreme standard of deference applicable to Act 111 awards; that is, we are bound to the arbitrator’s determination of these matters”), aff’d, 985 A.2d 1259 (Pa. 2009). 14 The Township further argues that the arbitrator violated its procedural due process rights because the arbitrator based his decision to revise Officer Kline’s discipli | 1 | 4 |
Borough of Montoursville v. Montoursville Police Bargaining Unitgreen2 sentences2025Rather, as long as an award relies upon fact-finding or upon interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, this Court applies “the extreme standard of deference applicable to Act 111 awards;” that is, this Court is “bound by the [A]rbitrator[s’] determination of these matters even though [this Court] may find it to be incorrect.” Borough of Montoursville, 958 A.2d at 1089 . 2015Borough of Montoursville v. Montoursville Police Bargaining Unit, 958 A.2d 1084, 1089 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Showalter v. Pantaleogreen2 sentences2018Showalter v. Pantaleo , 9 A.3d 233 , 235 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied , 610 Pa. 600 , 20 A.3d 489 (2011). 2012Showalter v. Pantaleo, 9 A.3d 233, 235 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 600 , 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (citing Edmondson v. Dolinich, 307 Pa.Super. 335 , 453 A.2d 611, 614 (1982)). | 1 | 2 |
City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Policegreen1 sentence2016See City of [Phila. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5, 768 A.2d 291, 294 (Pa. 2001)] [applying plenary review to the legal question of jurisdiction—whether an issue was encompassed in the demand for arbitration, or could lawfully be raised on the first day of the arbitration hearing—but deferring to the arbitrator’s determination that she did not exceed her power based upon her interpretation of the CBA]; compare City of Pittsburgh v. Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1, 764 A.2d 101, 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) . . . [deferential standard] with Borough of Morrisville v. Morrisv | 1 | 1 |
Edmondson v. Dolinichgreen2 sentences2012Showalter v. Pantaleo, 9 A.3d 233, 235 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 600 , 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (citing Edmondson v. Dolinich, 307 Pa.Super. 335 , 453 A.2d 611, 614 (1982)). 2012Showalter v. Pantaleo, 9 A.3d 233, 235 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 600 , 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (citing Edmondson v. Dolinich, 307 Pa.Super. 335 , 453 A.2d 611, 614 (1982)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strawn v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2025City of Phila[.] v. Fraternal Ord[.] of Police Lodge No. 5, 932 A.2d 274 (Pa. Cmwlth. [2007]), [aff’d, 985 A.2d 1259 (2009)]; [Pa.] State Police. 2020City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 (Breary), 932 A.2d 274, 280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (providing that where resolution of an issue “depends upon fact-finding or upon the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, we apply the extreme standard of deference applicable to Act 111 awards; that is, we are bound to the arbitrator’s determination of these matters”), aff’d, 985 A.2d 1259 (Pa. 2009). 14 The Township further argues that the arbitrator violated its procedural due process rights because the arbitrator based his decision to revise Officer Kline’s discipli | 3 | 2020–2025 |
BUCHART HORN, INC. v. Department of Transp.
green
2 sentences2018Showalter v. Pantaleo , 9 A.3d 233 , 235 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied , 610 Pa. 600 , 20 A.3d 489 (2011). 2012Showalter v. Pantaleo, 9 A.3d 233, 235 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 600 , 20 A.3d 489 (2011) (citing Edmondson v. Dolinich, 307 Pa.Super. 335 , 453 A.2d 611, 614 (1982)). | 2 | 2012–2018 |
Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers' Ass'n
green
1 sentence2016However, where it depends upon fact- dictate that it cannot apply.” Pa. State Police v. Pa. State Troopers’ Ass’n, 656 A.2d 83 , 89 n.17 (Pa. 1995) (citation omitted). 3 finding or upon interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, we apply the extreme standard of deference applicable to Act 111 awards; that is, we are bound by the arbitrator’s determination of these matters even though we may find them to be incorrect. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Stewart v. Stein
green
1 sentence2010Id. 11 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
City of Philadelphia v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LODGE NO. 5
neutral
2 sentences2008City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5, 932 A.2d 274 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 595 Pa. 403 , 938 A.2d 986 (2007); Pennsylvania State Police. 2008City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5, 932 A.2d 274 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal granted, 595 Pa. 403 , 938 A.2d 986 (2007); Pennsylvania State Police. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Tool Co. v. Norris
green
1 sentence1958U. S. 45, 17 L. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
White's Estate
green
1 sentence1937In support of this argument there is urged upon us the line of cases, the most recent of which is White’s Estate, 322 Pa. 85 , which holds that the price bid at the sheriff sale is conclusive upon the parties as to the value of the mortgaged premises and that: “After foreclosure the debtor has no right to a reconveyance of the property, even though he pays the balance (or deficiency) of the debt remaining.” (Italics ours.) This extreme rule which enables a mortgage creditor to acquire the mortgaged premises for nominal bid because of lack of competitive bidding, and yet demand of the mortgagor | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.