Summary
finding that Eltorons discussion of an issue on appeal which was limited to a footnote was insufficient to preserve the issue under the Rules; however, it had preserved other issues through its development in other documents and although its compliance with the Rules may have been technically defective, it did not preclude meaningful review of the other issues
Summary of this case from Union Township v. Ethan MichaelOpinion
April/May 2000.
Allocatur Disposition Lower Court Docket and Appeal Docket or Title Date Number Docket citation _____________________________ ________ _________ ___________ _____________
Dahms v. Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing .................. 5/8/ 1094 Denied Pa.Cmwlth., 2000 M.D. 741 A.2d 254 (1999) Dean v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review .............. 4/13/ 768 Denied No. 2329 C.D. 2000 W.D. 1998 (1999) Dial Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Lubinski); Dial Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Kipp) ............ 5/9/ 0626, Denied Nos. 2683, 2000 0627 2703 C.D. E.D. 1998 (1999) Donaldson v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review .............. 4/13/ 772 Denied No. 2333 C.D. 2000 W.D. 1998 (1999) Eltoron, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Aliquippa v. Price ...................... 5/9/ 815 Denied Pa.Cmwlth., 2000 W.D. 729 A.2d 149 (1999) Ghenne v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review .............. 4/13/ 773 Denied No. 2334 C.D. 2000 W.D. 1998 (1999)
Gross v. City of Pittsburgh; Gross, In re4 ................. 4/18/ 072, Cross-pet. Pa.Cmwlth., 2000 0073 Denied 741 A.2d 234 W.D. (2000)
Henkels and McCoy v. W.C.A.B. (Monaghan); Monaghan, In re ...................... 4/20/ 1223 Denied No. 859 C.D. 2000 M.D. 1999 (1999)