Case Name: Thomas E. REILLY and Leonoor M. Zehner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs, Respondents, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, a municipal corporation, Petitioner; Lisle A. ZEHNER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs, Petitioners, v. TOWNSHIP OF O'HARA, a municipal corporation, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1984-11-13
Citations: 506 Pa. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas E. REILLY and Leonoor M. Zehner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs, Respondents, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, a municipal corporation, Petitioner. Lisle A. ZEHNER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs, Petitioners, v. TOWNSHIP OF O’HARA, a municipal corporation, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 506
Pages: 165–167

Head Matter:
484 A.2d 736
Thomas E. REILLY and Leonoor M. Zehner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs, Respondents, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, a municipal corporation, Petitioner. Lisle A. ZEHNER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated plaintiffs, Petitioners, v. TOWNSHIP OF O’HARA, a municipal corporation, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Oct. 25, 1984.
Decided Nov. 13, 1984.
Marvin A. Fein, Deputy City Sol., D.R. Pellegrini, City Sol., Pittsburgh, for City of Pittsburgh.
Lisle A. Zehner, III, Thomas E. Reilly, Pittsburgh, pro se.
Richard Zomnir, John Elash, Pittsburgh, for O’Hara Tp.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER OF COURT
PER CURIAM.
The Court accepts plenary jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S. § 726, and dismisses the Complaints. The language of the statute clearly demonstrates that the legislative intent in the original Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, Act of April 13, 1972, No. 62, § 101, 53 P.S. § 1-101 et seq., was to grant the local communities, except as specifically prohibit ed in § l-302(a)(7), the right to fix rates, but not subjects, of taxation.
NIX, C.J., and McDERMOTT, J., dissent, would not accept plenary jurisdiction, and would remand the case to proceed to a determination on the merits.