noting, after requiring the trial court to accept the taxpayer’s unrebutted evidence of market value, the absence of any “finding or even suggestion that [the taxpayer’s] witnesses are not credible” (quoting Kemble’s Estate, 280 Pa. at 447, 124 A. at 696)
How later courts described this case
- noting, after requiring the trial court to accept the taxpayer’s unrebutted evidence of market value, the absence of any “finding or even suggestion that [the taxpayer’s] witnesses are not credible” (quoting Kemble’s Estate, 280 Pa. at 447, 124 A. at 696)
- an application for a review of an assessment not barred on principle of res judicata by determination made in earlier year; propriety of each years assessment presents a different cause of action
- evidence should be directed to value of entire property, not merely to value of building on property
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I would affirm the Order of the Court below for the reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinions in Morris v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 192 , 209 A. 2d 407 , and in Deitch Company v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 213 , 209 A. 2d 397 .
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this Dissenting Opinion.