Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc.

44 Citing cases

  1. Kenrich Athletic Club v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd.

    No. 889 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 11, 2013)

    47 P.S. §4-464 (emphasis added). The failure to file a notice of appeal within the statutory time limit is a defect that may not be disregarded, notwithstanding the Board's delay. Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965). In Yorktowne Paper Mills, a taxpayer's petition contesting its payment of a sales and use tax was denied.

  2. Provident Nat. Bank v. Rooklin

    250 Pa. Super. 194 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that "Pennsylvania case law is absolutely clear that the refusal of a trial court to reconsider, rehear, or permit reargument of a final decree is not reviewable on appeal."

    See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Peters, 178 Pa. Super. 82, 113 A.2d 327 (1955); Commonwealth v. Schneiderman, 162 Pa. Super. 461, 58 A.2d 196 (1948). It is also recognized that `[w]hen an Act of Assembly fixes the time within which an appeal may be taken, courts have no power to extend it or to allow an appeal nunc pro tunc, except where there is a showing of fraud or its equivalent.' Commonwealth v. Wright, 187 Pa. Super. 39, 42, 142 A.2d 336, 337 (1958). See also Ifft v.Hunter, 202 Pa. Super. 487, 489, 198 A.2d 436, 437 (1964) (`we [Superior Court] must take notice of the defect [untimely appeal] and there is no room for the exercise of discretion on our part'); Commonwealth v.Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965) (cases cited therein); Commonwealth exrel. Nicosia v. Nicosia, 184 Pa. Super. 440, 136 A.2d 135 (1957)."

  3. Dept. of Trans. v. Brougher

    291 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1972)   Cited 3 times
    In Department of Transp. v. Brougher, 5 Pa. Commw. 531, 291 A.2d 811 (1972), it was held that where an act of assembly fixes the time within which an appeal must be taken, the time may not be extended in the absence of fraud or its equivalent.

    On March 22, 1972, following the listing of the case for reargument, the appellee filed a motion to quash the appeal as not being timely filed. The timeliness of an appeal and compliance with the statutory provisions which grant the right of appeal go to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide the appeal. Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965). In Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. at 367-68, the Supreme Court wrote:

  4. Robinson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. Parole

    525 Pa. 505 (Pa. 1990)   Cited 24 times
    Holding tardy filings go to the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain a cause

    The mere fact that counsel was appointed to represent a petitioner who had filed a pleading which on its face is untimely does not warrant the assumption that the late filing has been excused. Tardy filings go to the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain a cause, Reading Anthracite Co. v. Rich, 525 Pa. 118, 577 A.2d 881 (1990); Commonwealth v. Bey, 437 Pa. 134, 262 A.2d 144 (1970); Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965); Dipple v. Pittsburgh, 373 Pa. 307, 95 A.2d 925 (1953), and thus cannot be lightly dismissed. The establishment of jurisdiction is of equal importance as the establishment of a meritorious claim for relief. See Adler v. City of Philadelphia, 397 Pa. 660, 156 A.2d 852 (1959); Main Cleaners and Dyers, Inc. v. Columbia Super Cleaners, Inc., 332 Pa. 71, 2 A.2d 750 (1938).

  5. Reading Anthracite Co. v. Rich

    525 Pa. 118 (Pa. 1990)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that "the timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional and will be raised by the court sua sponte, if necessary"

    Since the appeal period is statutorily imposed, it is mandatory on the courts and goes to our jurisdiction to hear and decide a controversy. It is for this reason that we have often said that the timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional and will be raised by the court sua sponte, if necessary. U.S. National Bank of Johnstown v. Johnson, 506 Pa. 622, 487 A.2d 809 (1985); Miller v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 505 Pa. 8, 476 A.2d 364 (1984); West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard, 460 Pa. 551, 333 A.2d 909 (1975); Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965). Issuing an order which puts a party in the position to seek appellate review or intervention in less than the time permitted by statute is wholly outside the court's jurisdiction and may be enjoined by prohibition.

  6. James F. Oakley, Inc. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila

    464 Pa. 330 (Pa. 1975)   Cited 25 times
    In James F. Oakley, Inc. v. School Dist. of Phila., 464 Pa. 330, 346 A.2d 765 (1975), our Supreme Court recounted the developments over the past decade to determine whether an appeal from an arbitration award should be quashed for failure to pay all the accrued costs.

    This Court has previously held that statutory requirements for the perfecting of an appeal are jurisdictional. In Re Purdy's Estate, 447 Pa. 439, 291 A.2d 93 (1972); Luckenbach v. Luckenbach, 443 Pa. 417, 281 A.2d 169 (1971); In Re Dixon's Estate, 443 Pa. 303, 279 A.2d 39 (1971); Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965) and Carr v. McGovern, 66 Pa. 457 (1870). No acceptable reasoning has been presented to persuade this Court to ignore the statutory requirements concerning the perfecting of an appeal de novo from an award of arbitrators under the Act of 1836.

  7. Anastasi Bros. Corp. v. Commonwealth

    455 Pa. 127 (Pa. 1974)   Cited 21 times
    In Anastasi Brothers Corporation v. Board of Finance and Revenue, 455 Pa. 127, 315 A.2d 267 (1974), a somewhat similar issue was the subject of review by our Supreme Court of the refusal by this Court to permit the introduction of additional facts, even though the appellant there had specifically reserved the right to do so.

    Appellant assumed that all testimony and documentary evidence presented to the administrative agencies automatically became part of the record in the Commonwealth Court. This assumption was erroneous. Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 368-70, 214 A.2d 203, 206 (1965). Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 343, art. XI, § 1104, as amended, 72 P. S. § 1104 (Supp.

  8. Commonwealth v. Bey

    437 Pa. 134 (Pa. 1970)   Cited 17 times

    The timeliness of an appeal and compliance with the statutory provisions which grant the right of appeal go to the jurisdiction of our Court and its competency to act. See: Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 368, 214 A.2d 203 (1965). We are without the power to enlarge or extend the time provided by statute for taking an appeal or to grant leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc. See: Commonwealth v. Simon, 413 Pa. 609, 610-11, 198 A.2d 583 (1964); Commonwealth v. Mackley, 380 Pa. 70, 73, 110 A.2d 172 (1955).

  9. Com. ex Rel. Ransom Twp. v. Mascheska

    239 A.2d 386 (Pa. 1968)   Cited 19 times
    Observing "[t]he parties, even by consent, cannot confer jurisdiction where such is in fact lacking"

    The parties, even by consent, cannot confer jurisdiction where such is in fact lacking. See Philadelphia v. William Penn Business Institute, 423 Pa. 490, 223 A.2d 850 (1966); Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965). We leave to the Superior Court the resolution of the merits of this controversy which include, inter alia, whether under the Ransom Township Zoning Ordinance the keeping of a horse in a barn where chickens were previously raised is a permissible continuation of a nonconforming use.

  10. Roberts v. Martorano

    427 Pa. 581 (Pa. 1967)   Cited 5 times

    Absent either a copy of the complaint in the record or a certificate indicating the amount in controversy, we are unable to determine whether this libel action involves an amount in controversy sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction. Appellant has therefore failed to demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal. Although no motion to dismiss has been filed by appellee, we may still dismiss this appeal for jurisdiction may not be conferred by the parties where none exists, Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., 419 Pa. 363, 214 A.2d 203 (1965), and this Court may raise a jurisdictional defect sua sponte. See Barco, Inc. v. Steel Crest Homes, Inc., 420 Pa. 553, 218 A.2d 221 (1966).