Court Opinion

ID: 9701915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:43:35.128177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:30.753983
License: Public Domain

VAN der VOORT, Judge,
dissenting:
Our Court, in this case, heard oral arguments. The Members of our Court have examined the briefs. It became my responsibility to draft an Opinion. I prepared one and supplied a copy to my colleagues and now we are transferring the case to the Commonwealth Court.
No party has objected to the jurisdiction of our Court and jurisdiction has been perfected in our Court. (See 17 P.S. 211.503(a)).
I respectfully dissent from this action which our Court is taking. No question of the power and authority of the Commonwealth or any of its agencies or any governmental subdivisions or quasi governmental bodies to act is involved in this case.
*62The simple issue involved is the determination of what is the “day on which the last labor was performed or material was supplied” (See the Bond Law of 1967, 8 P.S. 197(b)), where a contractor was summoned back to the job “by an owner” to make repairs or adjustments after the ostensible date of completion. My Opinion held that said day on which the last labor was performed or material was supplied was the day on which the repairs or adjustments were completed. I believe that by transferring this case at this late date we are not serving the cause of judicial economy, we are not helping any of the parties, nor are we clarifying the often faint line of Appellate jurisdiction between our Court and the Commonwealth Court, hence my dissent.
WATKINS, President Judge, joins in this Dissenting Opinion.