Opinion

Philadelphia Tax Review Board v. Smith, Kline & French Laboratories

  • 437 Pa. 197
  • 262 A.2d 135
  • 1970 Pa. LEXIS 866
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Feb 4, 1970
Status
Published
Author
Bell
On the bench
Robebts, Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy
Cited by
24 cases

Jones and Pomeroy, JJ., dissenting, and cases cited therein

How later courts described this case

  • Jones and Pomeroy, JJ., dissenting, and cases cited therein
  • opinion announcing the judgment of the Court

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell:

I dissent, although very regretfully. The Sterling Act, which all agree was intended to prohibit double taxation, has been at times confusingly and conflictingly interpreted. This has produced a result which at times and in some respects has been so unfair to Philadelphia that it should be changed and liberalized by the Legislature (and not by the Courts) in order to limit the State’s prohibition against double taxation to that which is practically and realistically double taxation.

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.