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.
14 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1982–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Popple v. Luzerne County Tax Claim Bureaugreen2 sentences2024See id. at 522-23 . 2024Id. at 519-23 . | 1 | 1 |
Wiles v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureaugreen1 sentence2019“While the [Tax Sale Law] is silent as to the manner of posting required, this Court has interpreted Section 602(e)(3) to mean that the method of posting must be reasonable and likely to inform the taxpayer and the public at large of an intended real property sale.” Wiles v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau, 972 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
In RE UPSET SALE TAX CLAIM BUREAU McKEAN CTY. ON SEP. 10, 2007green2 sentences2010(R.R. at 90, 152.) The fact that the Bureau failed to demonstrate that someone actually saw the posting is not dispositive. "[T]he critical question is not whether the [n]otice was *185 actually viewed by members of the public. . . [, but] rather on whether, given the circumstances, the [n]otice was placed in a location where it reasonably could be viewed by members of the public." In re: Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau McKean Co. on Sept. 10, 2007, 965 A.2d at 1248 (neighbor's testimony that he did not see notice posted on property was insufficient to support trial court's finding that posting wa 2010(R.R. at 90, 152.) The fact that the Bureau failed to demonstrate that someone actually saw the posting is not dispositive. “[T]he critical question is not whether the [n]otice was actually viewed by members of the public ... [, but] rather on whether, given the circumstances, the [n]otice was placed in a location where it reasonably could be viewed by members of the public.” In re: Upset Sale Tax Claim Bureau McKean Co. on Sept. 10, 2007, 965 A.2d at 1248 (neighbor’s testimony that he did not see notice posted on property was insufficient to support trial court’s finding that posting was not | 1 | 1 |
Winger v. Airesgreen2 sentences2001As Mr. Justice Musmanno wrote in Winger v. Aires, 371 Pa. 242, 244 , 89 A.2d 521, 522 (1952), “The power of eminent domain, next to that of conscription of manpower for war, is the most awesome grant of power under the law of the land.” . 2001As Mr. Justice Musmanno wrote in Winger v. Aires, 371 Pa. 242, 244 , 89 A.2d 521, 522 (1952), “The power of eminent domain, next to that of conscription of manpower for war, is the most awesome grant of power under the law of the land.” . | 1 | 1 |
In re Upset Salegreen2 sentences1983Because resolution of such conflicting testimony is for the trial court, Williams Appeal, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 180, 187 , 448 A.2d 696, 700 (1982), we remand this case for a determination of whether the local authorities complied with the Law’s posting requirement. 1983Because resolution of such conflicting testimony is for the trial court, Williams Appeal, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 180, 187 , 448 A.2d 696, 700 (1982), we remand this case for a determination of whether the local authorities complied with the Law’s posting requirement. | 1 | 1 |
Appeal of Crossleygreen2 sentences1983See Appeal of Crossley, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 351 , 432 A.2d 263 (1981). 1983See Appeal of Crossley, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 351 , 432 A.2d 263 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau
green
2 sentences2015This Court affirmed in both matters holding that “the trial court[s were] quite correct in finding, based upon the evidence before [them], that a presumption of regularity existed with respect to the posting requirement.'... [T]he evidence of the affidavit gave rise'to a presumption of posting.” Picknick, 936 A.2d at 1212 citing Thomas, 553 A.2d at 1046 . “[A] prima facie presumption of the regularity of the acts of-public officers exists until the contrary appears. 2007This Court affirmed and held that “the trial court was quite correct in finding, based upon the evidence before it, that a presumption of regularity existed with respect to the posting requirement.... [T]he evidence of the affidavit gave rise to a presumption of posting.” Id. at 1046 . | 2 | 2007–2015 |
Johnson v. ZONING HEARING BD. STROUD TP.
green
2 sentences2005In Johnson v. Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud Township, 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 479 , 601 A.2d 927 (1992), we considered a similar argument regarding inadequate compliance with an earlier and slightly different version of Section 609(b). 2005In Johnson v. Zoning Hearing Board of Stroud Township, 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 479 , 601 A.2d 927 (1992), we considered a similar argument regarding inadequate compliance with an earlier and slightly different version of Section 609(b). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Picknick v. Washington County Tax Claim Bureau
green
1 sentence2015This Court affirmed in both matters holding that “the trial court[s were] quite correct in finding, based upon the evidence before [them], that a presumption of regularity existed with respect to the posting requirement.'... [T]he evidence of the affidavit gave rise'to a presumption of posting.” Picknick, 936 A.2d at 1212 citing Thomas, 553 A.2d at 1046 . “[A] prima facie presumption of the regularity of the acts of-public officers exists until the contrary appears. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Ban v. Tax Claim Bureau
green
1 sentence2005This court has previously held that posting on a side door failed to comply with the posting requirement, Ban v. Tax Claim Bureau of Washington County, 698 A.2d 1386 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), and that posting that does not allow interested parties the opportunity to participate in the process warrants an upset of the tax sale, In re Tax Sale of Real Property Situated in Paint Township, Somerset County. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Reese v. County Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2004Section 1756 requires challenges to be raised within twenty (20) days of the election and also requires twenty (20) registered voters to join in the challenge. 3 In response, Plaintiffs argued that, under Gunnett v. Trout, 380 Pa. 504 , 112 A.2d 333 (1955), and Reese v. County Board of Elections of Lancaster County, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 448 , 308 A.2d 154 (1973), challenges to referendum notice requirements are appropriately raised in equity and, therefore, are not subject to the challenge time limits set forth in the Election Code. 2004Section 1756 requires challenges to be raised within twenty (20) days of the election and also requires twenty (20) registered voters to join in the challenge. 3 In response, Plaintiffs argued that, under Gunnett v. Trout, 380 Pa. 504 , 112 A.2d 333 (1955), and Reese v. County Board of Elections of Lancaster County, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 448 , 308 A.2d 154 (1973), challenges to referendum notice requirements are appropriately raised in equity and, therefore, are not subject to the challenge time limits set forth in the Election Code. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gunnett v. Trout
green
2 sentences2004Section 1756 requires challenges to be raised within twenty (20) days of the election and also requires twenty (20) registered voters to join in the challenge. 3 In response, Plaintiffs argued that, under Gunnett v. Trout, 380 Pa. 504 , 112 A.2d 333 (1955), and Reese v. County Board of Elections of Lancaster County, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 448 , 308 A.2d 154 (1973), challenges to referendum notice requirements are appropriately raised in equity and, therefore, are not subject to the challenge time limits set forth in the Election Code. 2004Section 1756 requires challenges to be raised within twenty (20) days of the election and also requires twenty (20) registered voters to join in the challenge. 3 In response, Plaintiffs argued that, under Gunnett v. Trout, 380 Pa. 504 , 112 A.2d 333 (1955), and Reese v. County Board of Elections of Lancaster County, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 448 , 308 A.2d 154 (1973), challenges to referendum notice requirements are appropriately raised in equity and, therefore, are not subject to the challenge time limits set forth in the Election Code. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re Sale of Properties by Indiana County Tax Claim Bureau for Unpaid Tax Claims
green
2 sentences1987In Sale of Property by Indiana County Tax Claim Bureau, 22 Pa. Commw. 147 , 348 A.2d 440 (1975), we reviewed a common pleas court decision which had dismissed the owner’s objections to a tax sale holding that, because the owner had received the mailed notice of the sale, no need to post notice existed. 1987In Sale of Property by Indiana County Tax Claim Bureau, 22 Pa. Commw. 147 , 348 A.2d 440 (1975), we reviewed a common pleas court decision which had dismissed the owner’s objections to a tax sale holding that, because the owner had received the mailed notice of the sale, no need to post notice existed. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Commonwealth v. Brose
green
2 sentences1982The sole authority cited for this premise was Commonwealth v. Brose, 412 Pa. 276 194 A.2d 322 , (1963), which mandated the posting of warning signs before use of radio-microwave (“radar”) devices. 1982The sole authority cited for this premise was Commonwealth v. Brose, 412 Pa. 276 194 A.2d 322 , (1963), which mandated the posting of warning signs before use of radio-microwave (“radar”) devices. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.