Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RUSSELL W. ARBUCKLE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/19/84)

decided: July 19, 1984.

RUSSELL W. ARBUCKLE, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Russell W. Arbuckle, No. B-205729.

COUNSEL

Robert A. Rosin, with him, Howard R. Sklaroff, for petitioner.

Joel G. Cavicchia, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, MacPhail, Doyle, Barry, Colins and Palladino. Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Palladino

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 146]

The question presented in this case is whether, under Pa. R.A.P. 2741, costs may be taxed against the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) as the losing party in an unemployment compensation claimant's successful appeal to this Court.

The facts underlying this case are as follows: Petitioner, Russell W. Arbuckle, was fired for failing to report to work on October 30, 1981, the day before his wedding. Petitioner had previously been granted a vacation day for October 30, which the Employer revoked on October 29. Petitioner still took the day off to prepare for his wedding, and as a result, was discharged. The referee and the Board declared him ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits on the basis of willful misconduct.*fn1 This Court reversed the order of the Board and remanded for computation of benefits, holding that Petitioner was not guilty of willful misconduct because the Employer's late revocation of the vacation day was unreasonable.*fn2

Petitioner has filed a bill of costs totaling $588.31. The Board has filed exceptions to Petitioner's bill of

[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 147]

    costs, asserting that the imposition of costs upon it would work a substantial injustice, because the Board is a quasi-judicial body which is required to act as the respondent in appeals from it decisions. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Petitioner's bill of costs.

Section 1726 of the Judicial Code*fn3 authorized the governing authority (the Pennsylvania Supreme Court) to promulgate general rules governing the imposition of costs. This section also set forth guidelines for the Supreme Court to consider in prescribing its rules. Section 1726(2) provides that:

The prevailing party should recover his costs from the unsuccessful litigant except where the:

(i) Costs relate to the existence, possession or disposition of a fund and the costs ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.