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.

WILLIAM DOWLIN v. COATESVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT (12/26/75)

decided: December 26, 1975.

WILLIAM DOWLIN, APPELLANT
v.
COATESVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE. CARLTON W. GROVE, JR., APPELLANT V. COATESVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE. HERMAN M. BREUNINGER, APPELLANT, V. COATESVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE. BARRY HADLEY, APPELLANT V. COATESVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Orders of the Court of Common Pleas in cases of Coatesville Area School District v. William Dowlin, No. 83 December Term, 1971; Coatesville Area School District v. Carlton W. Grove, Jr., No. 84 December Term, 1971; Coatesville Area School District v. Herman M. Breuninger, No. 85 December Term, 1971; and Coatesville Area School District v. Barry Hadley, No. 86 December Term, 1971.

COUNSEL

Arthur A. Moorshead, with him A. Bruce Niccolo, and Moorshead & Niccolo, for appellants.

Franklin L. Gordon, with him Gordon & Ashton, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 434]

William Dowlin, Carlton Grove, Jr., Herman M. Breuninger, and Barry Hadley (Appellants) appeal a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Chester which granted Coatesville Area School District's (Appellee) motions for summary judgment. These separate appeals were consolidated for argument and disposition. We affirm.

Appellee instituted suit by filing a complaint in assumpsit to collect delinquent occupation taxes*fn1 against Appellants Hadley and Grove for the school tax years 1968, 1969 and against Appellants Dowlin and Breuninger for the school tax years 1968, 1969 and 1970. However,

[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 435]

    before Appellee instituted these suits, it had to struggle through years of other litigation brought in part by some of these Appellants and in other part by other taxpayers to establish the constitutionality and validity of the tax ordinances.*fn2

After their preliminary objections were dismissed, Appellants filed an answer wherein new matter was set forth alleging that the tax as levied was illegal and unconstitutional, and was based on an improper assessment. Appellee filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the answer and new matter, which were dismissed by the court. Appellee then filed its answer to new matter and later filed motions for summary judgment. The court, after hearing argument on the motions, granted summary judgment. Appellants then filed this appeal.

The sole question presented for our determination is: Is there no genuine issue as to any material fact so that Appellee is entitled to the summary judgment*fn3 as a matter of law?

Section 2 of The Local Tax Enabling Act, Act of December 31, 1965, P.L. 1257, as amended, 53 P.S. ยง 6902 gave to the Appellee the power to levy, assess and collect occupational privilege taxes. The assessments of occupations are made under the authority of The Fourth to Eighth Class County ...


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.