Court Opinion

ID: 9750674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:19:58.379756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:17.115473
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge COHN JUBELIRER.
I agree with the Majority’s well-reasoned opinion reversing the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and remanding this matter to determine whether Marsha Hall is entitled to *1210nunc pro tunc relief. I write separately to express my belief that using the phrase “now for then,” even when used in conjunction with the term nunc pro tunc, which is consistently and traditionally used in our case law, will create confusion among litigants. In particular, I do not see how using this term, although it is English rather than Latin, will help pro se litigants, who do not know the law or understand why they did not prevail before the lower tribunal or this Court. The phrase “now for then” does not explain the legal concept of nunc pro tunc relief, or the requirements for obtaining such relief, to a layperson any better than the use of the phrase “nunc pro tunc.”