From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pa. Human Rel. Com'n v. Sch. D. of Millcreek

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Aug 22, 1977
377 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1977)

Opinion

August 22, 1977.

Appeal from the Commonwealth Court, 368 A.2d 901.

Katherine H. Fein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, Pittsburgh, for petitioner.

John W. Beatty, Knox, Graham, McLaughlin, Gornall Sennett, Inc., Erie, for respondent.

Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and PACKEL, JJ.


OPINION OF THE COURT


The petition of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission for leave to appeal is hereby granted.

Applying the standard of review of orders of administrative agencies prescribed by § 44 of the Administrative Agency Law, Act of June 4, 1945, P.L. 1388, 71 P. S. § 1710.44, we conclude that the order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission in this case dated March 28, 1976 is supported by substantial evidence and is in accordance with section 5(a) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P. S. § 955(a). See Pa. Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Assoc., 453 Pa. 124, 135-136, 306 A.2d 881, 888 (1973). Because the order of the Commonwealth Court from which appeal is sought is not in accord with this determination, the order must be vacated and the case remanded to the Commonwealth Court for proceedings consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Pa. Human Rel. Com'n v. Sch. D. of Millcreek

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Aug 22, 1977
377 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1977)
Case details for

Pa. Human Rel. Com'n v. Sch. D. of Millcreek

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 22, 1977

Citations

377 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1977)
377 A.2d 156

Citing Cases

Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell

Although this Court has not decisionally addressed the question, courts in other jurisdictions are divided…

Adama v. Doehler

"Although this Court has not decisionally addressed the question, courts in other jurisdictions are divided…