Case Title: Konidaris, et al, Aplts v. Portnoff Law (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2008-08-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-2A&B-2007] [M.O. - BAER, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT JERRY KONIDARIS AND THEODORA G. KONIDARIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. PORTNOFF LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD, Appellee/Cross-Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Nos. 14 and15 WAP 2006 Appeals from the Order of Commonwealth Court entered September 16, 2005 at No. 2428 CD 2004, affirming in part and reversing in part the Order of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas entered September 17, 2004 at No. GD 03-006341. 884 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) ARGUED: March 5, 2007 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: AUGUST 18, 2008 I would affirm the Commonwealth Court’s holding; see Konidaris v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd., 884 A.2d 348, 356 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). As such, I join the affirmation of portions of that decision, but must dissent from the reversal of the remainder.1 1 Finding Delinquent Taxpayers’ Remedies Clause argument failed, the majority does not address the jurisdictional issue. Majority Slip Op., at 10 n.9. I would affirm the Commonwealth Court’s dismissal of Delinquent Taxpayers’ declaratory judgment action for jurisdictional defects. See Konidaris, at 355.