Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Appeal of Borough of Churchill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1990No. 31 and 32 W.D. Appeal Docket 1989Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZappala, Justice

I concur with the majority’s decision to reverse and remand this matter to the Commonwealth Court for consid*92eration of the merits of this appeal because the Appellant should not be penalized for proceeding in accordance with the trial court’s instructions concerning the procedure for review of a decision in tax assessment cases. Rather than leaving it to an individual trial judge’s discretion as to whether the filing of exceptions in statutory appeals will be permitted, however, I would hold that the procedure of filing exceptions does not apply to those appeals. This would ensure that the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co.'s AssessmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  2. Thompson's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Chester Holding Corp. AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API