City of Philadelphia v. F.O.P., Lodge (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-134-2000] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellant v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE NO. 5, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 57 E.D. Appeal Docket 1999 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court at No. 2615 C.D. 1998, dated April 29, 1999, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, July Term, 1998, No. 162, dated August 21, 1998. 728 A.2d 1043 (Pa. Commw. 1999) ARGUED: October 16, 2000 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: March 22, 2001 I join the majority opinion, but write separately to reiterate my belief that the certiorari review as defined in Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass n (Betancourt), 656 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1995), is too narrow. As I stated in my concurring opinion in Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass n., 741 A.2d 1248, 125455 (Pa. 1999), I would add a fifth area to the Bentancourt scope of review: whether the arbitration decision is repugnant to public policy or shocks the conscience of the court. Since the arbitrator s decision in the instant case does not implicate this additional area of review, however, I agree with the disposition reached by the majority.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
