Case Name: Lowell HUDSON, D.W. Storer, Robert Hurst, John Fleck and Cecil Nave, individually and as the representatives of a class of taxpayers of Union County, the Lewisburg Area School District and Kelly Township, Appellants, UNION COUNTY, Pennsylvania; Union County Board of Assessment; Earl K. Noll, Chief Assessor of Union County; the Lewisburg Area School District; and Lucille D. Baker, Kelly Township Tax Collector
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1984-11-05
Citations: 505 Pa. 604
Docket Number: Appeal No. 80-3-670
Parties: Lowell HUDSON, D.W. Storer, Robert Hurst, John Fleck and Cecil Nave, individually and as the representatives of a class of taxpayers of Union County, the Lewisburg Area School District and Kelly Township, Appellants, v. UNION COUNTY, Pennsylvania; Union County Board of Assessment; Earl K. Noll, Chief Assessor of Union County; the Lewisburg Area School District; and Lucille D. Baker, Kelly Township Tax Collector.
Judges: Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDER-MOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 505
Pages: 604–604

Head Matter:
482 A.2d 1273
Lowell HUDSON, D.W. Storer, Robert Hurst, John Fleck and Cecil Nave, individually and as the representatives of a class of taxpayers of Union County, the Lewisburg Area School District and Kelly Township, Appellants, v. UNION COUNTY, Pennsylvania; Union County Board of Assessment; Earl K. Noll, Chief Assessor of Union County; the Lewisburg Area School District; and Lucille D. Baker, Kelly Township Tax Collector.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Oct. 22, 1984.
Decided Nov. 5, 1984.
James F. Geddes, Jr., Wilkes-Barre, for appellant.
Louise O. Knight, Lewisburg, for School Dist. and Lucille D. Baker, Tax Collector.
Wayne A. Bromfiled, Lewisburg, for Union Co., Bd. of Assessment and Earl K. Noll.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDER-MOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.
NIX, C.J., and LARSEN and ZAPPALA, JJ., dissent and would reach the merits in order to clarify the procedure for raising constitutional objections.