Legal Opinion

Kittatinny Canoes, Inc. v. Westfall Township

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Pike County

Decided May 6, 2013No. 183 CV 2013PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARK, J.,

— On April 8,2013, we entered an order granting the motion of plaintiffs Kittatiny Canoes, Inc. (“Kittatiny”) and Indian Head Canoes, Inc. (“Indian Head”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) for a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant Westfall Township *48(“defendant” or the “township”) from enforcing its newly-enacted amusement tax against them for amusements or activities conducted on the Delaware River. In the order, we indicated that this opinion would follow. We now present our reasons for granting plaintiffs’ motion.

Factual and Procedural Background

On December 4, 2012, pursuant to…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  4. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018
  2. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of RevenueDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2017
  3. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018
  4. Wendella Sightseeing Company, Inc. v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 2023
  5. Wendella Sightseeing Company, Inc. v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API