policy reasons behind rule in Pennsylvania

2020Brown Charter School Court further found that “nothing in Section 1721-A of the [CSL] indicates that the General Assembly intended to abrogate the common law rule that a majority is determined by the number currently serving, not the total number of appointments that could be made to [CAB].” Id. at 1150 . [O]ur Supreme Court explained the common law rule and the policy reasons behind the rule as follows: In determining the number of votes necessary for a deliberative body to take official action, Pennsylvania follows the common law rule.

2020Brown Charter School Court further found that “nothing in Section 1721-A of the [CSL] indicates that the General Assembly intended to abrogate the common law rule that a majority is determined by the number currently serving, not the total number of appointments that could be made to [CAB].” Id. at 1150 . [O]ur Supreme Court explained the common law rule and the policy reasons behind the rule as follows: In determining the number of votes necessary for a deliberative body to take official action, Pennsylvania follows the common law rule.

2016Under similar facts, the Third Circuit, 16 applying its essentially identical rule (Fed.R.Evid. 606), reiterated the policy reasons behind the rule which include: "discouraging harassment of jurors by losing parties eager to have the verdict set aside; ... promoting verdict finality; [and] maintaining the viability of the jury as a judicial decision-making body .11 United States v. Lakhani, 480 F.2d 171, 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Gov't of the V.l. v. Gereau, 523 F.2d 140 (3d Cir. 1975)).

2007Stoltz v. McConnon, 473 Pa. 157 , 373 A.2d 1096 (1977); *1148 Munce v. O’Hara, 340 Pa. 209 , 16 A.2d 532 (1940); see also Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel.

2007Stoltz v. McConnon, 473 Pa. 157 , 373 A.2d 1096 (1977); *1148 Munce v. O’Hara, 340 Pa. 209 , 16 A.2d 532 (1940); see also Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel.

2007In DiGiacinto v. City of Allentown, 486 Pa. 436 , 406 A.2d 520 (1979), our Supreme Court explained the common law rule and the policy reasons behind the rule as follows: In determining the number of votes necessary for a deliberative body to take official action, Pennsylvania follows the common law rule.

2007In DiGiacinto v. City of Allentown, 486 Pa. 436 , 406 A.2d 520 (1979), our Supreme Court explained the common law rule and the policy reasons behind the rule as follows: In determining the number of votes necessary for a deliberative body to take official action, Pennsylvania follows the common law rule.

2007Stoltz v. McConnon, 473 Pa. 157 , 373 A.2d 1096 (1977); *1148 Munce v. O’Hara, 340 Pa. 209 , 16 A.2d 532 (1940); see also Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel.

2007Stoltz v. McConnon, 473 Pa. 157 , 373 A.2d 1096 (1977); *1148 Munce v. O’Hara, 340 Pa. 209 , 16 A.2d 532 (1940); see also Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel.

1994This court has stated the rule as “[t]he Commission clearly may not establish rates which are calculated to retroactively recover surpluses or refund deficits created by inaccuracies in its prior rate authorizations.” Pike County Light & Power Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 87 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 451, 456, 487 A.2d 118 (1985).