# E. Schock v. City of Lebanon

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 4, 2017 · 167 A.3d 861

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9877858

## Case

- **Full name:** Edward J. SCHOCK, Appellant v. CITY OF LEBANON
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 4, 2017
- **Citations:** 167 A.3d 861; 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 556; 2017 WL 3318780
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Leadbetter
- **Judges:** Simpson, Covey, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 1 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/9877858

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER
I must respectfully dissent. I agree .with the Objector’s arguments outlined on pages 867-68 of the proposed majority opinion. I find particularly persuasive that, as the trial court found, all property owners will be impacted in some way by the NID, and this is not in any way unique to the NID at issue, but will generally be the case. Therefore, by designating a limited class of “affected” property owners entitled to vote under Section 5(f)(2), the General Assembly cannot have intended that to mean all property owners. When it intended to mean “all property owners” it said so in Section 5(b)(1). Certainly, as the majority points out, the Act does not use the term “assessed” in Section 5(f)(2), but neither does it use the term “all.” I agree that the statutory language could be clearer but, for the other reasons cited by Objector, I believe that interpreting “affected” to mean “assessed” is closer to the statutory intent than interpreting “affected” to mean “all.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9877858. Public record. Not legal advice.