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.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/01/85)

decided: August 1, 1985.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Board of Arbitration of Claims in case of Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, No. FC-292-82.

COUNSEL

Michael E. Garner, Melvyn S. Mantz & Associates, P.C., for petitioner.

Felix Thau, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 596]

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) appeals an order of the Board of Claims which decided in favor of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) in an action filed by Conrail against the PLCB for recovery of unpaid charges on various contracts for shipment of wine. We must determine*fn1

[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 597]

    whether the PLCB is liable to Conrail for charges connected with delays in unloading the rail freight cars, and for charges for protective services (i.e., heating and cooling the freight cars en route) provided by Conrail at the request of the shippers, who produce the wine.

Initially, however, we must consider the PLCB's motion to quash this appeal on the grounds that Conrail failed to preserve the issues here presented by not filing appropriate post-trial motions. The PLCB argues that 4 Pa. Code ยง 121.1 requires actions before the Board of Claims to be, as nearly as possible, in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and that, therefore, the proper procedure for appealing the board's order was first to file a motion for post-trial relief in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1.

However, the PLCB has cited no precedent requiring Board of Claims litigants to move that body for post-trial relief in order to achieve an appealable final order.*fn2 Because the Board of Claims has never treated Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1 as being applicable to its proceedings, this court will not superimpose such a requirement, which would achieve nothing but delay.

Hence, the motion to quash is denied.

As to the merits, Conrail's petition before the board alleged that Conrail performed certain transportation services for the PLCB, and charged the PLCB in accordance with tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. Although Conrail has billed the PLCB, the ...


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.