Case ID: pa_417/html/0454-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam, Mr. Justice Roberts :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Appellant, v. Board of Property Assessment.
    Argued March 22, 1965.
    Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.
    
      Thomas Park Shearer, with him Paul S. Foreman, for appellant.
    
      
      Francis A. Barry, First Assistant County Solicitor, with him James Victor Voss, Assistant County Solicitor, and Maurice Louik, County Solicitor, for board, appellee.
    April 20, 1965:
   Opinion

Per Curiam,

The Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review introduced in evidence in the lower Court its record of assessment of appellant’s property, with a breakdown thereof into a valuation of land, and of machinery, and of the building thereon. That Court ruled that the records of the Board made out a prima facie case, and this had not been overcome by the taxpayer’s evidence of the value of the building.

The Court further found that the evidence produced by the taxpayer did not show that the assessment exceeded the market value of the property, or of the building, or proved a lack of uniformity. It is obvious that the Court did not believe the taxpayer’s evidence as to the value of the building, and for this reason (among others) we find no abuse of discretion or error of law in the Court’s dismissal of the appeal.

Order affirmed.

Concurring Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts :

I concur in the result and would affirm the court below. The trial court here correctly applied the basic and governing principles we mostly recently expressed in Deitch Co. v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 213, 209 A. 2d 397 (1965), Pittsburgh Miracle Mile Town & Country Shopping Center, Inc. v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 243, 209 A. 2d 394 (1965), and McKnight Shopping Center, Inc. v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 417 Pa. 234, 209 A. 2d 389 (1965).

Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Cohen concur in this opinion.