Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY BOARD PROPERTY ASSESSMENT (03/24/66)

decided: March 24, 1966.

ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY BOARD OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, APPEALS AND REVIEW, APPELLANT



Appeals from orders of County Court of Allegheny County, Nos. A-179 to A-186, inclusive, in case of Allegheny General Hospital v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County.

COUNSEL

Thomas M. Rutter, Jr., Assistant County Solicitor, with him Francis A. Barry, First Assistant County Solicitor, and Maurice Louik, County Solicitor, for board, appellant.

G. Harold Blaxter, with him Herman S. Harvey, Jr., and Blaxter, O'Neill, Houston & Nash, for appellee.

Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, and Hoffman, JJ. (Ervin, P. J., and Flood, J., absent). Opinion by Montgomery, J. Watkins, and Jacobs, JJ., dissent.

Author: Montgomery

[ 207 Pa. Super. Page 267]

The Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County (Board) has appealed from

[ 207 Pa. Super. Page 268]

    eight orders of the County Court of said County giving eight parcels of land owned by the Allegheny General Hospital in the City of Pittsburgh with some buildings thereon exempt status for local taxes, the same having been assessed by the Board for tax purposes. The cases were consolidated for trial in the court below and are now before us in consolidated form on appeal.

Two of the properties are contiguous to the main building and grounds of the hospital; three, which together form a parking area, are across Esplanade Street, one of the streets forming the boundary of the main grounds; one is across Retanus Way, another boundary street; and the other two are on East North Avenue on which the main building fronts but are separated from the main building by other properties. The governing board of the hospital determined that the uses being made of all of said properties were "reasonably necessary" for the operation of the hospital and the lower court, after hearing, made the same finding.

The fact that some of the properties are not contiguous to the main hospital property is not determinative of the issue before us. University of Pittsburgh Tax Exemption Case, 407 Pa. 416, 180 A.2d 760 (1962); Barnes Foundation v. Keely, 314 Pa. 112, 171 A. 267 (1934); Lancaster Theological Seminary Tax Exemption Case, 207 Pa. Superior Ct. 12, 214 A.2d 285 (1965).

We need not repeat the basic principles guiding our consideration of these matters since they are expressed by us in Shadyside Hospital Appeal, 207 Pa. Superior Ct. 261, 218 A.2d 355 (1966), to which reference is made.

This is not such a case where we should substitute our judgment for that of the lower court as was done in Pittsburgh Bible Institute v. Board of Property ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.