# Board of Property, Assessment, Appeals, Review & Registry v. County of Allegheny

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · February 8, 2001 · 773 A.2d 816

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713849

## Case

- **Full name:** BOARD OF PROPERTY, ASSESSMENT, APPEALS, REVIEW and REGISTRY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY and Kenneth R. Behrend, Richard P. Odato, Rose Howard Liptak, Louis J. Sparvero, Michael J. Suley, Darin Sarin and Gene Scheck, All in Their Official Capacities v. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, Allegheny County Council and the Allegheny County Chief Executive Appeal of Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County; Board of Property, Assessment, Appeals, Review and Registry of Allegheny County and Kenneth R. Behrend, Rose Howard-Liptak, Louis J. Sparvero, Michael J. Suley, Darin Sarin and Gene Scheck, All in Their Official Capacities v. County of Allegheny, Allegheny County Council and the Allegheny County, Chief Executive Appeal of Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 8, 2001
- **Citations:** 773 A.2d 816; 2001 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 102
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pellegrini
- **Judges:** Doyle, McGinley, Smith, Pellegrini, Friedman, Kelley, Flaherty
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713849

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing similar provisions related to property assessment in counties of second class

## Opinion text

*822 PELLEGRINI, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the analysis contained in Judge McGinley’s dissenting opinion that this Court’s recent opinion in In re Appointment of District Attorney, 756 A.2d 711 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) controls the outcome of this case. By not following the reasoning cited by Judge McGinley, I take it that the majority now inferentially repudiates that portion of In re Appointment of District Attorney holding that a home rule charter cannot contain provisions that are at variance with a law that is only applicable in certain parts of the Commonwealth. Because the majority inferentially has reversed that holding, I join in the majority opinion.
FLAHERTY, J., joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713849. Public record. Not legal advice.