Young's Sales v. Underground Storage Tank

17 A.3d 331, 609 Pa. 500, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 117
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 19, 2011·No. 802 MAL 2009·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

*501 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

In a question of first impression not previously determined by this Court, does the Commonwealth Court’s holding that eligibility for recovery from the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund is on a “per tank” basis misinterpret the purpose of and misapply both federal and state laws requiring mandatory financial responsibility for underground storage tanks and threaten the overall financial sustainability of the Fund itself?

Petitioner’s Application Seeking Leave to Supplement the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED, as moot.

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

Young's Sales v. Underground Storage Tank, 17 A.3d 331, 609 Pa. 500, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 117 (Pa. 2011).

17 A.3d 331 (Young's Sales v. Underground Storage Tank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Young's Sales & Service v. Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board
70 A.3d 795 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2013)