Dole v. Philadelphia

Pa.

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Citations: 337 Pa. 375, 11 A.2d 163, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 417

Decision Date: 2/5/1940

Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 152 and 153

Jurisdiction: PA

Bluebook Citation: Dole v. Philadelphia, 337 Pa. 375, 11 A.2d 163, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 417 (Pa. 1940)

More Cases: Pa. decisions from 1940


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 60 decisions
60
Citing decisions
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

14
21
9
4
6
1
3
1
1
1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Pa.16
Pa. Super. Ct.11
Pa. Commw. Ct.5
Phila. Cty. C.P.5
Bucks Cty. C.P.3
E.D. Pa.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2025G. Schmidt v. Col. C. Paris, Comm'r. PSP Pa. Commw. Ct.
  • 2019Nikki Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh 3rd Cir.
  • 2009Brown v. City of Pittsburgh 3d Cir.
  • 2003Principal Life Insurance v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board Pa. Commw. Ct.
  • 2001Commonwealth v. Firman Pa. Super. Ct.
  • 1990Commonwealth v. Schellenberger Pa. Super. Ct.
  • 1985Allegheny County v. Monzo Pa.
  • 1984Buckley v. Commonwealth Pa. Commw. Ct.
  • 1983Pa. Dept. of Revenue v. Verna Bucks Cty. C.P.
  • 1983Thornbury Township v. Widdis Del. Cty. C.P.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Dole, Appellant, v. Philadelphia et al.

Judges

  • Before Schaffer, C. J., Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern, Barnes and Patterson, JJ.

Attorneys

  • Gilbert J. Kraus and Isadore Katz, with them Jerome L. Markovits.
  • Abraham L. Shapiro and Abraham Werniek, with them Herman N. Schwarts, Assistant City Solicitors, and Francis F. Burch, City Solicitor, for appellees.
  • Ivan P. Pechner and Milton Brooks, for intervenor.
majority Per Curiam, Per Curiam,

The decree of the court below dismissing plaintiff’s bill is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Oliver. Costs to be paid by the City of Philadelphia.

Order on Petition to Withhold Return oe Record and Supplemental Opinion,

Per Curiam,

We have considered the petition to withhold the return of the record for an additional period of thirty days and are of opinion that the public interest requires that the petition be and it hereby is dismissed.

When this case was argued, our attention was not called by counsel to Sections' 12, 14 and 15 of the recent Act of June 27, 1939, P. L. 1199, which cover, inter alia, the subject of taxation here involved and in themselves provide adequate methods whereby the taxpayer may have any assessment made against him reviewed by the Board of Revision of Taxes of Philadelphia County and may appeal from that Board to the Court of Common Pleas and from there to the appellate courts. This statute confirms our conclusion that due process of law is afforded to plaintiff and to all taxpayers.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.