Legal Opinion

Mazur v. Trinity Area School District

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 17, 2008No. 1—6 WAP 2008PublishedCited by 126 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice McCAFFERY.

The issue presented in the instant case is whether courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a challenge to a local authority’s determination, pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Act (“TIF Act”), 1 that an area is “blighted.” In addition, we are asked to determine whether the instant allegations of bad faith on the part of the local authority are sufficient to withstand preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.

Appellants, who are two private individuals (Edward M. Mazur and Jeffrey W. Bull) and a citizens’ group (Citizens Against Tax Incremental…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Daniel v. Family Security Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Schenck v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  5. Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by126 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Pennsylvania State Police of Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Balletta v. SpadoniCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  3. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. v. VukmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Burke, A., Aplt. v. Independence Blue CrossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. William Penn School District v. Pennsylvania Department of EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API