Opinion

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Board of Assessment Appeals

  • 72 Pa. Commw. 199
  • 456 A.2d 694
  • 1983 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1347
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Feb 18, 1983
Status
Published
Author
Blatt
On the bench
Blatt, Doyle, Williams
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion bt

Judge Blatt

I respectfully dissent only ¡as to the majority’s conclusion that attorney’s fees should be denied.

*210 The Interiboro School District blatantly violated Section 518.1 of the Law’s requirement that taxes paid under protest be .segregated. It refused to participate in the settlement negotiations, instead relying on the County for representation, and then refused to honor the stipulation entered. Additionally, it has effectively succeeded in protracting this litigation.

I believe, therefore, that Interboro School District’s conduct was not .in good faith and was “dilatory, obdurate or vexatious ’ \ 1

Accordingly, I would grant the appellant’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees.

Section 2503(7) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C. S. §2503(7).

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.