Cadue v. Moore

7 Citing cases

  1. Yost v. McKnight

    865 A.2d 979 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2005)   Cited 13 times
    In Yost, the Board of County Commissioners of Clinton County brought a declaratory judgment action against the Clinton County District Attorney to determine the appropriate procedure for a district attorney to appoint a lawyer to the position of temporary special assistant attorney to assist with a capital murder case.

    Given the scope and breadth of their fiscal responsibilities, it would be illogical to compel the Commissioners to provide non-budgeted funds to cover the expense of legal service contracts entered into by the District Attorney without their approval. See Lewis;Cadue v. Moore, 646 A.2d 683 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994). "Forcing" the payment of such contracts could potentially overdraw the amount the Commissioners have budgeted for the department, or cause the Commissioners to appropriate funds from other line items or other departments and levy taxes in an amount sufficient to meet the District Attorney's expenses.

  2. Kleinbard LLC v. The Office of the Dist. Attorney of Lancaster Cnty.

    204 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Apr. 25, 2023)

    Id. (citing Lewis v. Monroe County, 737 A.2d 843 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). See also Cadue v. Moore, 646 A.2d 683 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

  3. IN RE ELK COUNTY AUDITORS

    903 A.2d 652 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Adopting same dictionary definition of "audit" where term was not defined in another statute

    Elk County further argues that several appellate court cases have addressed the power of a court of common pleas to order the payment of unbudgeted funds and in all cases held that local governments may not be forced to make payment of salaries or contract obligations if the legislative body of that governmental unit does not make appropriations sufficient to cover the claim. See e.g. Yost v. McKnight, 865 A.2d 979 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005); Cadue v. Moore, 166 Pa.Cmwlth. 450, 646 A.2d 683 (1994); and Coleman v. Stevenson, 20 Pa.Cmwlth. 498, 343 A.2d 375 (1975). In Kistler v. Carbon County, 154 Pa.Super. 299, 35 A.2d 733 (1944), the Superior Court stated that the obligation to guard against unlawful or exorbitant charges rests with the county commissioners.

  4. Degeorge v. Young

    892 A.2d 48 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2006)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a strict construction analysis applies when interpreting statutes where there is a potential for public officials to improperly discriminate in their own favor

    Additionally, the language in Section 1556, which states "paid in whole or in part," provides Commissioners discretion in determining whether to pay benefits fully or partially. 16 P.S. § 1556; see also 16 P.S. § 203 (vesting county commissioners with corporate power of their respective counties); Cadue v. Moore, 166 Pa.Cmwlth. 450, 646 A.2d 683, 686 (1994) (finding policy decisions are within the province of county commissioners). They contend that, in Columbia County, the typical county employee works 1,950 hours per year, whereas Auditors work approximately 540 hours per year.

  5. Luzerne County Bd. of Com'rs v. Flood

    874 A.2d 687 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    While the salary board performs an administrative function of fixing salaries and compensation of the county employees, the board of county commissioners performs a legislative function of appropriating funds for the employees' salary and compensation fixed by the salary board. See Cadue v. Moore, 166 Pa.Cmwlth. 450, 646 A.2d 683 (1994) (holding that a board of county commissioners may not be compelled to implement salary increases fixed by salary board where payment of raises would result in overdrawing amount budgeted for salaries and would require board to transfer funds from elsewhere in budget). The Court has acknowledged that the salary board "is best conceived as a `watchdog agency over the county commissioners, the purpose being to act as a restraining agency so that the commissioners may not have unimpeded and unrestrained power of appointment at any salary they may determine.'"

  6. Reiver v. Kraines

    838 A.2d 814 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    See Commissioners of Montgomery County v. Lukens, 415 A.2d 118, 120 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). In Cadue v. Moore, 646 A.2d 683 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994), we described the function and composition of the Salary Board as follows: A salary board is created in each county by section 1622 of the County Code with the board consisting of the three county commissioners and the county controller, or the county treasurer if there is no controller. The function of the salary board is to set the salaries of appointed county officers and to set the number of county employees and their salaries.

  7. Lewis v. Monroe County

    737 A.2d 843 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1999)   Cited 5 times
    In Lewis, this Court noted, inter alia, that the county salary board must conform its salary decisions to the budget established by the commissioners for the year.

    Pa.R.C.P. No. 126 provides for the liberal construction and application of rules when necessary to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of actions. To that end, courts are permitted to disregard any procedural error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The trial court noted that the function of the Salary Board is to set the salaries of County employees, with the purpose of acting as a watchdog agency over the County Commissioners. See Cadue v. Moore, 646 A.2d 683 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994); Penska v. Holtzman, 620 A.2d 632 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993). Thus, the trial court determined that Lewis, in order to carry out his responsibilities as a member of the Salary Board, needed to review more than the 1999 budgetary form; he also must be permitted to examine the Griffith Report which "clearly provides the basis of the figures used by [the] Commissioners to fix the [C]ounty employees' wages."