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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Philadelphia Hous. Auth. v. AM. FED.green2 sentences2007The trial court appropriately relied upon this authority, and I respectfully contend the majority errs by overlooking it. 4 In our recent articulation of the “core function” analysis, we noted the impact of the core function exception on the concept of “just cause”: Both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and this court have held that a government employer cannot bargain away its power to fire for misconduct bearing directly upon the performance of its essential functions; this incapacity (referred to as contractual incapacity) imposes a legal restriction on an arbitrator’s interpretation as to wh 2007The trial court appropriately relied upon this authority, and I respectfully contend the majority errs by overlooking it. [4] In our recent articulation of the "core function" analysis, we noted the impact of the core function exception on the concept of "just cause": Both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and this court have held that a government employer cannot bargain away its power to fire for misconduct bearing directly upon the performance of its essential functions; this incapacity (referred to as contractual incapacity) imposes a legal restriction on an arbitrator's interpretation as to | 2 | 3 |
Pries v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2007Under the principle of stare de-cisis, we are bound to follow the decisions of our Court unless they are overruled by the Supreme Court, or where other compelling reasons can be demonstrated. 1 Pries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136, 144 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 592 Pa. 762 , 923 A.2d 412 (2007). 2007Under the principle of stare decisis, we are bound to follow the decisions of our Court unless they are overruled by the Supreme Court, or where other compelling reasons can be demonstrated. [1] Pries v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136, 144 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), petition for allowance of appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 923 A.2d 412 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers 1
green
2 sentences2006Although decided under the now discredited "manifestly unreasonable" standard, three cases are generally considered to be the conceptual antecedents of the core function test, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1 (Philadelphia Housing), 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983); County of Centre v. Musser (Musser), 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union (ISSU), 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (ISSU). 2006Although decided under the now discredited "manifestly unreasonable" standard, three cases are generally considered to be the conceptual antecedents of the core function test, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1 (Philadelphia Housing), 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983); County of Centre v. Musser (Musser), 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union (ISSU), 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (ISSU). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
County of Centre v. Musser
green
2 sentences2006Although decided under the now discredited "manifestly unreasonable" standard, three cases are generally considered to be the conceptual antecedents of the core function test, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1 (Philadelphia Housing), 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983); County of Centre v. Musser (Musser), 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union (ISSU), 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (ISSU). 2006Although decided under the now discredited "manifestly unreasonable" standard, three cases are generally considered to be the conceptual antecedents of the core function test, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1 (Philadelphia Housing), 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983); County of Centre v. Musser (Musser), 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union (ISSU), 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (ISSU). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Liquor Cont. Bd. v. Ind. S. Stores U.
green
2 sentences2006Although decided under the now discredited "manifestly unreasonable" standard, three cases are generally considered to be the conceptual antecedents of the core function test, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1 (Philadelphia Housing), 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983); County of Centre v. Musser (Musser), 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union (ISSU), 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (ISSU). 2006Although decided under the now discredited "manifestly unreasonable" standard, three cases are generally considered to be the conceptual antecedents of the core function test, Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1 (Philadelphia Housing), 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983); County of Centre v. Musser (Musser), 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); and Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union (ISSU), 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (ISSU). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
City of Easton v. American Federation of State
red
2 sentences2011This exception was expanded when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the core function exception to the essence test in City of Easton v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 447, 562 Pa. 438 , 756 A.2d 1107 (2000), wherein the Court recognized that governmental agencies do not have the freedom to relinquish those powers that are essential to the proper discharge of their functions. [3] Thus, if a government agency cannot bargain away its right to terminate an employee, the fact that grounds for that termination are not in the CBA does not give the Ar 2011This exception was expanded when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the core function exception to the essence test in City of Easton v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 447, 562 Pa. 438 , 756 A.2d 1107 (2000), wherein the Court recognized that governmental agencies do not have the freedom to relinquish those powers that are essential to the proper discharge of their functions. [3] Thus, if a government agency cannot bargain away its right to terminate an employee, the fact that grounds for that termination are not in the CBA does not give the Ar | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Ass'n
green
2 sentences2008Acknowledging that the core function exception has been met "with uncertainty and criticism," in Westmoreland Intermediate Unit # 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit # 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, 595 Pa. 648 , 939 A.2d 855 (2007), our Supreme Court replaced the "core function" exception with the federal public policy exception to the essence test. 2008Acknowledging that the core function exception has been met "with uncertainty and criticism," in Westmoreland Intermediate Unit # 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit # 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Association, 595 Pa. 648 , 939 A.2d 855 (2007), our Supreme Court replaced the "core function" exception with the federal public policy exception to the essence test. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Allegheny County Airport Authority v. Construction General Laborers & Material Handlers Union, 1058
green
1 sentence2007Thus, while PSEA, in its Brief of Amicus Curiae, argues forcefully and eloquently that the "core function test" is inappropriate in all arbitration cases, we interpret the supreme court's decisions in this area as holding that consideration of a public employer's core function is an essential part of the analysis under the essence test. [9] Because the arbitrator emphasized the lack of evidence in this regard, we reject the District's argument that, under the arbitrator's award, an employee may step off school property, take drugs and return to school without the risk of disciplinary action. [ | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pries v. WCAB
green
2 sentences2007Under the principle of stare de-cisis, we are bound to follow the decisions of our Court unless they are overruled by the Supreme Court, or where other compelling reasons can be demonstrated. 1 Pries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136, 144 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 592 Pa. 762 , 923 A.2d 412 (2007). 2007Under the principle of stare decisis, we are bound to follow the decisions of our Court unless they are overruled by the Supreme Court, or where other compelling reasons can be demonstrated. [1] Pries v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136, 144 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), petition for allowance of appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 923 A.2d 412 (2007). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Giles ex rel. Giles v. Brookville Area School District
green
1 sentence2007Giles v. Brookville Area School District, 669 A.2d 1079 (Pa.Cmwlth.1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 686 , 679 A.2d 231 (1996), to support its statement that "the district's policy should be given credence unless it is apparent that the school district's conduct is arbitrary, capricious and to the prejudice of the public interest." (Trial ct. op. at 8.) However, the decision in Giles involved review of a school board's action, rather than review of an arbitrator's decision, and our scope of review is significantly different in each case. [8] Because our supreme court has considered a public employ | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.