Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Community Options, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessmentgreen2 sentences2007However, we need not reach this argument because we have rejected the Commonwealth Court's reasoning in Community Service Foundation and the conclusion that Appellant is not a "purely public charity" under the Hospital Utilization Project test. 571 Pa. at 682-683 , 813 A.2d at 687 (emphasis added). [21] In short, Community *910 Options II did not reach the issue of whether the HUP test trumps Act 55. [22] Even if the majority were correct in its premise that every taxpayer seeking an exemption as a purely public charity must, first, undergo the judicially created HUP test, that premise is not 2007However, we need not reach this argument because we have rejected the Commonwealth Court's reasoning in Community Service Foundation and the conclusion that Appellant is not a "purely public charity" under the Hospital Utilization Project test. 571 Pa. at 682-683 , 813 A.2d at 687 (emphasis added). [21] In short, Community *910 Options II did not reach the issue of whether the HUP test trumps Act 55. [22] Even if the majority were correct in its premise that every taxpayer seeking an exemption as a purely public charity must, first, undergo the judicially created HUP test, that premise is not | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2002Plaza Corp., 526 A.2d at 1175 ; Hospital Utilization Project, 487 A.2d at 1312 , a question which has never been disputed by the taxing bodies and thus has been answered in the affirmative by concession of the taxing bodies. 2002Plaza Corp., 526 A.2d at 1175 ; Hospital Utilization Project, 487 A.2d at 1312 , a question which has never been disputed by the taxing bodies and thus has been answered in the affirmative by concession of the taxing bodies. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
G.D.L. Plaza Corp. v. Council Rock School District
green
2 sentences2002Plaza Corp., 526 A.2d at 1175 ; Hospital Utilization Project, 487 A.2d at 1312 , a question which has never been disputed by the taxing bodies and thus has been answered in the affirmative by concession of the taxing bodies. 2002Plaza Corp., 526 A.2d at 1175 ; Hospital Utilization Project, 487 A.2d at 1312 , a question which has never been disputed by the taxing bodies and thus has been answered in the affirmative by concession of the taxing bodies. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Young Mens Christian Assoc. of Germantown v. Phila.
green
2 sentences1992We have previously addressed this issue in Germantown, 323 Pa. at 413-414 , 187 A. at 210 : Any institution which by its charitable activities relieves the government of part of this burden is conferring a pecuniary benefit upon the body politic, and in receiving exemption from taxation, it is merely being given a quid pro quo for its services in providing something which otherwise the government would have to provide. 1992We have previously addressed this issue in Germantown, 323 Pa. at 413-414 , 187 A. at 210 : Any institution which by its charitable activities relieves the government of part of this burden is conferring a pecuniary benefit upon the body politic, and in receiving exemption from taxation, it is merely being given a quid pro quo for its services in providing something which otherwise the government would have to provide. | 1 | 1992–1992 |