# Wilkes-Barre Appeal

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · September 15, 1966 · 208 Pa. Super. 424

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757352

## Case

- **Full name:** Wilkes-Barre Appeal
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 15, 1966
- **Citations:** 208 Pa. Super. 424; 222 A.2d 499; 1966 Pa. Super. LEXIS 863
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** Ervin, Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9757352

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Wright, J.:
Act No. 481 of 1947, on which the City of Wilkes-Barre relied for its taxing authority, had been specifically repealed when the ordinance under consideration was adopted. The majority concedes that “the City *444 not only failed to recite tlie proper legislative authority for its actions but, also, referred to a statute which had been repealed”. In Pleasant Hills Borough v. Car roll., 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 102 , 125 A. 2d 466 , cited by the majority, the ordinance did not contain a reference to the enabling act. This was contrary to an express requirement which the legislature had inserted in the statute by amendment. The majority of this court reasoned that there had been substantial compliance with the amendment because the required statement appeared in the advertising. I filed a dissenting opinion in which Judge Gunther joined. In the instant case the advertising was also incorrect and is here under attack. I respectfully suggest that, although quoting Sections 81 and 82 of the Statutory Construction Act, the majority completely ignores the admonition in Section 58 that provisions imposing taxes shall be strictly construed. It is my view that the court below was fully warranted in declaring the ordinance illegal and void. I would affirm on the able opinion of Judge Brominski.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757352. Public record. Not legal advice.