correction error in Pennsylvania

2015Id.

2011Whereas the delegated legislative aspect of the agency’s power is generally used to establish standards of conduct, the agency also may utilize, in particular instances, the adjudicative aspect of the agency’s power to further standards of conduct needed to meet specialized problems.” Id., 499 Pa. at 521 , 454 A.2d at 8 .

2011Whereas the delegated legislative aspect of the agency’s power is generally used to establish standards of conduct, the agency also may utilize, in particular instances, the adjudicative aspect of the agency’s power to further standards of conduct needed to meet specialized problems.” Id., 499 Pa. at 521 , 454 A.2d at 8 .

2011Whereas the delegated legislative aspect of the agency’s power is generally used to establish standards of conduct, the agency also may utilize, in particular instances, the adjudicative aspect of the agency’s power to further standards of conduct needed to meet specialized problems.” Id., 499 Pa. at 521 , 454 A.2d at 8 .

2003McCrady also directs us to Radecke v. York County Board of Assessment Appeals, 798 A.2d 265 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002), as additional support for this proposition.

1996Commonwealth v. Johnson, 484 Pa. 545 , 400 A.2d 583 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kampo, 480 Pa. 516 , 391 A.2d 1005 (1978).

1996Commonwealth v. Johnson, 484 Pa. 545 , 400 A.2d 583 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kampo, 480 Pa. 516 , 391 A.2d 1005 (1978).

1996Commonwealth v. Johnson, 484 Pa. 545 , 400 A.2d 583 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kampo, 480 Pa. 516 , 391 A.2d 1005 (1978).

1996Commonwealth v. Johnson, 484 Pa. 545 , 400 A.2d 583 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kampo, 480 Pa. 516 , 391 A.2d 1005 (1978).

1941The second reason for a rehearing was to permit defendant to argue a contention as to a question of law affecting the entire basis of the awards in the light of a decision handed down by the Superior Court in the case of Bucci et ux. v. Lincoln Coal Co., Inc., et al., 140 Pa. Superior Ct. 538 .

1938N. C. 14), the register was at lib *120 erty to appoint as administrator “any fit person at Ms discretion.” It is now pointed ont by appellees, the cousins of decedent, that even in that event their nominee could not have been preferred over that of appellant unless the court had concluded that they were the rightful heirs, since administration is properly confined to one having an interest in the estate: Friese's Estate, 317 Pa. 86, 89 .

1923“Where a justice of the peace has jurisdiction of the parties and the cause of action and proceeds in the mode prescribed by law to judgment, the remedy for the correction of his error, whether of fact or law, is by appeal; where the proceedings, as shown by his record, are irregular or contrary to law, the party aggrieved has a remedy by certiorari:” Rockwell v. Tupper, 7 Pa. Superior Ct. 174 .

1923“Where a judgment has been entered by a justice of the peace against a garnishee in an attachment execution, and the garnishee fails to sue out a certiorari within twenty days after judgment entered, a writ of certiorari thereafter taken will not justify a reversal of the judgment of the justice because of a mere irregularity in the record of the justice:” Wahl v. Poore, 46 Pa. Superior Ct. 630 . “1.

1909This, however, gives him no claim on them for contribution to his compensation,” and as stated by Mr. Justice Potter, in Harrison’s Estate, 221 Pa. 508 : “The fund was in the hands of the court, and in no jeopardy except from possible mistake of the court in dealing with it; and in that event, nothing more was required for the correction of the error than the filing and argument of proper exceptions in the court below, and if necessary, following the matter to the appellate court.