Summary
In Reilly, the Supreme Court declared that the legislative intent behind the Home Rule Law was to grant local communities, except when prohibited, the right to fix rates of taxation.
Summary of this case from Penn Hills S.D. v. Mun. of Penn HillsOpinion
Argued October 25, 1984.
Decided November 13, 1984.
Marvin A. Fein, Deputy City Sol., D.R. Pellegrini, City Sol., Pittsburgh, for City of Pittsburgh.
Lisle A. Zehner, III, Thomas E. Reilly, Pittsburgh, pro se.
Richard Zomnir, John Elash, Pittsburgh, for O'Hara Tp.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
ORDER OF COURT
The Court accepts plenary jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 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 prohibited in § 1-302(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.