Opinion

East Hempfield Township v. Lancaster

  • 441 Pa. 406
  • 273 A.2d 333
  • 1971 Pa. LEXIS 1130
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 25, 1971
Status
Published
Author
Bell
On the bench
Beien, Bell, Cohen, Eagen, Jones, Pomeeoy, Roberts, Took
Cited by
8 cases

The opinion

Concurring Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell :

I join in the Majority Opinion, but feel compelled to add the following:

, The legislation in the field of determining and fixing rates, and the jurisdiction of the issues arising thereunder, are so muddled and confusing that they should be quickly clarified by the Legislature. The City of Lancaster and its created Authority, by their conveyance, lease-back arrangements and devices which are an obvious subterfuge, have unintentionally but successfully added to the confusion in this field.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.