Schock, E. v. City of Lebanon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Schock, E. v. City of Lebanon

176 A.3d 857

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 27, 2017·No. 609 MAL 2017 (Granted)·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Where subsection 5(f)(2) of the Neighborhood Improvement District Act, Act of December 20, 2000, P.L. 949, No. 130 provides for veto of a final plan “[i]f 40% or more of the affected property owners within the proposed NID [neighborhood improvement district] register' their disapproval,” is the term “affected property owners within the proposed NID” limited to the owners of properties to be assessed under the plan or does the term include the owners of all properties that are within the physical boundaries of the district?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Where subsection 5(f)(2) of the Neighborhood Improvement District Act, Act of December 20, 2000, P.L. 949, No. 130 provides for veto of a final plan “[i]f 40% or more of the affected property owners within the proposed NID [neighborhood improvement district] register' their disapproval,” is the term “affected property owners within the proposed NID” limited to the owners of properties to be assessed under the plan or does the term include the owners of all properties that are within the physical boundaries of the district?

Schock, E. v. City of Lebanon, 176 A.3d 857 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

176 A.3d 857 (Schock, E. v. City of Lebanon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.