Reilly v. City of Pittsburgh

484 A.2d 736, 506 Pa. 165, 1984 Pa. LEXIS 325
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 13, 1984·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER OF COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Court accepts plenary jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S. § 726, and dismisses the Complaints. The language of the statute clearly demonstrates that the legislative intent in the original Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, Act of April 13, 1972, No. 62, § 101, 53 P.S. § 1-101 et seq., was to grant the local communities, except as specifically prohibit[167]*167ed in § l-302(a)(7), the right to fix rates, but not subjects, of taxation.

NIX, C.J., and McDERMOTT, J., dissent, would not accept plenary jurisdiction, and would remand the case to proceed to a determination on the merits.

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

Reilly v. City of Pittsburgh, 484 A.2d 736, 506 Pa. 165, 1984 Pa. LEXIS 325 (Pa. 1984).

484 A.2d 736 (Reilly v. City of Pittsburgh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Penn Hills School District v. Municipality of Penn Hills
555 A.2d 302 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)
Cox's v. Municipality of Monroeville
484 A.2d 737 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)