Rule 899.1—899.12. [Reserved].
Source The provisions of these Rules 899.1—899.12 reserved June 27, 1997, effective July 28, 1997, 27 Pa.B. 3046. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (215883) to (215888).
Notes of Decisions Confiscation of items from prison cell was not consensual, and therefore, the mutual consent necessary for the formation of a contractual relationship was absent. Board lacked jurisdiction in that claim was not based on an express, implied or quasi-contract with the Commonwealth. Department of Revenue v. Board of Claims, 580 A.2d 923 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
The Board of Claims exceeded its equity jurisdiction by reforming a lease agreement between the Department of General Services and a real estate agency when a valid contract existed. Department of General Services v. Lhormer Real Estate Agency, Inc., 549 A.2d 1008 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988); appeal denied 575 A.2d 118 (Pa. 1990).
Since a ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding’’ with a first level supervisory unit is not a binding contract, the existence of such ‘‘memorandum’’ did not deprive the Board of Claims of its exclusive jurisdiction under section 4 of the act of May 20, 1937 (P. L. 728) (72 P. S. § 4651-4), to hear and determine claims previously acted upon by the Auditor General and State Treasurer under Article X of the Fiscal Code (72 P. S. § § 1001—1004). Liquor Control Board v. Clark, 509 A.2d 928 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
Were the Board of Claims to accept claimant’s implied contract theory, as an alternative to his claim under a Memorandum of Understanding, the Board of Claims could have jurisdiction even though the Memorandum of Understanding contained an arbitration clause. Shaffer v. Liquor Control Board, 500 A.2d 917 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Since a Memorandum of Understanding arrived at through the ‘‘meet and discuss’’ provisions of the Public Employee Relations Act (43 P. S. § 1101.704), is neither a collective bargaining agreement nor a contract, a dispute arising under the Memorandum is not precluded from Board of Claims jurisdiction under the rule of Kapil v. Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Facilities, 504 Pa. 92, 470 A.2d 482 (1983) and Liquor Control Board v. Shulin, 471 A.2d 599 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). Shaffer v. Liquor Control Board, 500 A.2d 917 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Where the claim accrued before there was an unequivocal denial of responsibility by defendant and more than 6 months before the claim was filed, the Board of Claims properly determined that the statute of limitations had been exceeded. Darien Capital Management, Inc. v. Public School Employes’ Retirement System, 668 A.2d 210 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Appellant cannot clarify a statement that did not appear in the notice of appeal. It is undisputed that the appellant’s notice of appeal contained no statement of objections to the order of the Board of Claims. Thus, the appellant’s petition for review has added, rather than clarified, objections to the order of the Board of Claims. Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Liquor Control Board, 666 A.2d 395 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
In order for a party to properly preserve an issue for appellate review pursuant to Chapter 15 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, a petition for review which complies with the rules, particularly Pa.R.A.P. 1513, must be filed within the applicable appeal period or the appeal may be quashed. It is the responsibility of parties seeking review of governmental determinations to familiarize themselves with and thereafter to comply with, the governing rules of appellate procedure. Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Liquor Control Board, 666 A.2d 395 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
