Sunderland Properties, Inc. v. County of Berks, Pa.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
VAN ANTWERPEN, District Judge.
The defendants in the captioned matter have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). 1 The defendants argue that the court should dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice because of the Tax Injunction Act of 1937, because of the doctrine of comity, and because various doctrines of abstention should apply. A hearing on the defendants’ motion was held by the court in Easton, Pennsylvania on August 31, 1990. After reading the motions and briefs of the parties and after listening to oral argument…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1959
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Murtagh v. County of BerksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Murtagh v. County of BerksCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Greenwich Township v. MurtaghCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Behe v. Chester County Board of Assessment AppealsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Greenwich Township v. MurtaghCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.