lone exception in Pennsylvania

2017The Board asserted the Commonwealth Court itself recognized this principle in Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).10 The Board maintained Gaito remains controlling precedent and the lone exception to Gaito was set forth in Martin, which allowed credit to be applied to a parolee’s original sentence only if it were not possible to award all credit toward his new sentence because the new sentence was shorter than the period of pre-sentence confinement.

2017The Board asserted the Commonwealth Court itself recognized this principle in Armbruster v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 919 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 10 The Board maintained Gaito remains controlling precedent and the lone exception to Gaito was set forth in Martin, which allowed credit to be applied to a parolee’s original sentence only if it were not possible to award all credit toward his new sentence because the new sentence was shorter than the period of, pre-sentence confinement.

2014See See D’Auria 507 A.2d 857 ; Consulting Engineers, 710 A.2d 82 ; Guaranty Nat.

2014See D’Auria, 352 Pa.Super. 231 , 507 A.2d 857 ; Consulting Engineers, 710 A.2d 82 ; Guaranty Nat.

2007The appropriate standard to be employed when an appellate court reviews an arbitrator’s decision is known as the “essence test.” In State System of Higher Education (Cheyney University) v. State College University Professional Association (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135 , 743 A.2d 405 (1999), our supreme court stressed the deference to be accorded to the award of the arbitrator chosen by the parties, noting that, in the vast majority of cases, the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding, the lone exception being where the arbitrator’s award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining a

2007The appropriate standard to be employed when an appellate court reviews an arbitrator’s decision is known as the “essence test.” In State System of Higher Education (Cheyney University) v. State College University Professional Association (PSEA-NEA), 560 Pa. 135 , 743 A.2d 405 (1999), our supreme court stressed the deference to be accorded to the award of the arbitrator chosen by the parties, noting that, in the vast majority of cases, the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding, the lone exception being where the arbitrator’s award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining a

2004In noting a lone exception to this rule, the Court identified considerations “of urgency and necessity, especially when coupled with the stipulated public interest and absence of bad faith or ulterior motivation....” Id. at 386 , 755 A.2d at 1290 (quoting MacCalman v. County of Bucks, 411 Pa. 316, 321 , 191 A.2d 265, 267 (1963)).

2004Finally, and of particular significance here, the Lobolito Court noted, “[t]he Commonwealth Court has also explained that an employment contract between a township’s supervisors and a police chief encompasses a governmental function (ensuring public safety) and thus was unenforceable against future supervisors who wanted to appoint a new police chief.” Id. at 387 , 755 A.2d at 1290 (citing Falls Township, 537 A.2d at 947 .) Ultimately, the Lobolito Court determined the governmental contract at issue was unenforceable against a successor school board.

2004In noting a lone exception to this rule, the Court identified considerations “of urgency and necessity, especially when coupled with the stipulated public interest and absence of bad faith or ulterior motivation....” Id. at 386 , 755 A.2d at 1290 (quoting MacCalman v. County of Bucks, 411 Pa. 316, 321 , 191 A.2d 265, 267 (1963)).

2004Finally, and of particular significance here, the Lobolito Court noted, “[t]he Commonwealth Court has also explained that an employment contract between a township’s supervisors and a police chief encompasses a governmental function (ensuring public safety) and thus was unenforceable against future supervisors who wanted to appoint a new police chief.” Id. at 387 , 755 A.2d at 1290 (citing Falls Township, 537 A.2d at 947 .) Ultimately, the Lobolito Court determined the governmental contract at issue was unenforceable against a successor school board.

2002This Court ruled that this lone violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure without something further could not be deemed “willful,” “contemptuous,” or “dilatory.” Id. at 589 .

1988Weinstein, supra, 499 Pa. at 117 , 451 A.2d at 1349 . *630 Expert testimony as to the existence of specific intent in this case comes down to the fact that with the lone exception of the Appellant's own psychiatrist, Dr. Gary M.

1988Weinstein, supra, 499 Pa. at 117 , 451 A.2d at 1349 . *630 Expert testimony as to the existence of specific intent in this case comes down to the fact that with the lone exception of the Appellant's own psychiatrist, Dr. Gary M.