Legal Opinion

Shoemaker v. City of York

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 29, 1979No. Appeal, No. 2072 C.D. 1978PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge DiSalle,

On April 28, 1978, the City of York (City) commensed an assumpsit action, by way of a praecipe for writ of summons, against the law firm of Shoemaker, Thompson & Ness (Taxpayer) to collect payment of the City’s Business Privilege Tax (Tax). The same day, the City obtained a subpoena to compel Taxpayer to produce books and records revealing its gross receipts. On May 3, 1978, Taxpayer filed a motion for a protective order. The lower court temporarily restrained production of the records, and ordered that a rule be issued upon the City to show cause why the protective…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Radell v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API