Commonwealth v. Hall, 172 A.3d 1119 (Pa. 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Hall, 172 A.3d 1119 (Pa. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Snyder Bros., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n (pa, 2018-12-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Snyder Bros., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n
Pa. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See infra note 24. 13 As the PUC highlights, see PUC Brief at 25, and as we discuss at greater length infra , this was a grievous minimization of the degree of benefit counties and municipalities realize from the amount of impact fees collected, given that both are entitled to the majority of money - 60 percent - remaining in the Fund after distributions to conservation districts and state agencies, and as an additional 40% of the funds in the Marcellus Legacy Fund is dedicated to county bridge and recreational projects. 58 Pa.C.S. §§ 2314 & 2315. 14 This too was an incorrect interpretation …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Robert HALL
No. 220 EAL 2017.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Oct 18, 2017.
172 A.3d 1119
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.