Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
(a) Necessary powers conferred.--The provisions of this title shall be construed so as to vest in the unified judicial
system and in the personnel of the system power to do all things that are reasonably
necessary for the proper execution and administration of their functions within the
scope of their respective jurisdiction.
(b) No inference from express grant of powers.--The inclusion in this title of provisions derived from or based on the text of the
Constitution of Pennsylvania and the specification in this title of the powers of
the unified judicial system is for the avoidance of potential controversy and the
convenient codification of the powers of the system from whatever source derived and
shall not be construed as a determination by the General Assembly that any of such
powers are or are not inherent in the Supreme Court or the other agencies and units
of the system under the Constitution of Pennsylvania or otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1984–1999 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Baker, 474 A.2d 415 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984).
Commonwealth v. Baker, 474 A.2d 415 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). · cites it 2דThe affirmative principle of interpretation in section 103(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §103(1), that it is to be construed toward providing the necessary powers in the “unified judicial system” — the courts, 42 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Moore, 584 A.2d 936 (Pa. 1991). “) In further support of its decision, the court observed that courts of common pleas have broad discretionary powers to make such rules and orders of court as the interest of justice may require, citing 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 103, 323, and 912; that in the similar, though *156 concededly…”
Mulligan v. Piczon, 739 A.2d 605 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999). “42 Pa.C.S. §§ 103 and 323. It necessarily follows that a trial court has the authority to compel attendance of persons over whom it has personal jurisdiction at pretrial settlement conferences.”
Cnty. of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 500 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985). “Its contention is that this expenditure of funds by the County is inconsistent with the clear language and intent of Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and Sections 103 and 301 of the Judicial Code (Code)-, 42 Pa. C. S. §§103 and 301, which-provide that…”
Reitz v. Dieter, 840 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Pa. 1993). “(quoting 42 Pa.Cons. StatAnn. § 103(a) (Purdon 1981) (emphasis added)).”
Lago DeVita Cmty. Ass'n v. Bd. of Supervisors, 35 Pa. D. & C.3d 291 (1984). “Further, as a practical matter, we feel that the quasi-judicial nature of the zoning hearing board is such that the board is a tribunal within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S. § 103(d). It is our considered opinion that fairness dictates that cases such as this, which have been…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 103(1) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Baker, 474 A.2d 415 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). “The affirmative principle of interpretation in section 103(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §103(1), that it is to be construed toward providing the necessary powers in the “unified judicial system” — the courts, 42 Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 103(a) — 2 cases
Commonwealth v. Baker, 474 A.2d 415 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). “The affirmative principle of interpretation in section 103(a) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §103(1), that it is to be construed toward providing the necessary powers in the “unified judicial system” — the courts, 42 Pa.”
Reitz v. Dieter, 840 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Pa. 1993). “(quoting 42 Pa.Cons. StatAnn. § 103(a) (Purdon 1981) (emphasis added)).”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 103(d) — 1 case
Lago DeVita Cmty. Ass'n v. Bd. of Supervisors, 35 Pa. D. & C.3d 291 (1984). “Further, as a practical matter, we feel that the quasi-judicial nature of the zoning hearing board is such that the board is a tribunal within the meaning of 42 Pa.C.S. § 103(d). It is our considered opinion that fairness dictates that cases such as this, which have been…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.