Downingtown Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Downingtown Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals

846 A.2d 74, 577 Pa. 420, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 439

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 9, 2004·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issues:

1. Did the Commonwealth Court err in affirming the trial court’s decision that Hromisin v. Board of Assessment Appeals of Luzerne County, 719 A.2d 815 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), al-loc. denied, 558 Pa. 634, 737 A.2d 1227 (1999), superseded the methods of determining uniformity established by this Court?

2. Did the Commonwealth Court err in affirming the trial court’s disregard of the uncontradicted valuation testimony propounded by the property owner and compound this error by then ruling on the competency and quality of such testimony when the trial court made no such determination?

Inasmuch as the constitutionality of Section 8(d.2) of the County Assessments Law [75] of 1931, 72 P.S. § 5349(d.2), is called into question, the Attorney General is hereby invited to intervene. The Prothonotary is directed to provide prompt notice of this Order to the Attorney General.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issues:

1. Did the Commonwealth Court err in affirming the trial court’s decision that Hromisin v. Board of Assessment Appeals of Luzerne County, 719 A.2d 815 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), al-loc. denied, 558 Pa. 634, 737 A.2d 1227 (1999), superseded the methods of determining uniformity established by this Court?

2. Did the Commonwealth Court err in affirming the trial court’s disregard of the uncontradicted valuation testimony propounded by the property owner and compound this error by then ruling on the competency and quality of such testimony when the trial court made no such determination?

Inasmuch as the constitutionality of Section 8(d.2) of the County Assessments Law [75] of 1931, 72 P.S. § 5349(d.2), is called into question, the Attorney General is hereby invited to intervene. The Prothonotary is directed to provide prompt notice of this Order to the Attorney General.

Downingtown Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals, 846 A.2d 74, 577 Pa. 420, 2004 Pa. LEXIS 439 (Pa. 2004).

Pincite

846 A.2d 74 (Downingtown Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related