Court Opinion

ID: 9640250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:50.873759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:28.625440
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I concur.
While I agree with the result reached by the majority I come to it by a different path. But I shall not repeat at length the discussion in my dissents in Studio Theaters, Inc. v. Washington, also decided today, and Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 190 A. 2d 111 (1963). In short, the legislature has provided a complete statutory scheme for the regulation of the exercise of the assessing power in question.1 The disposition of all questions — constitutional or otherwise—(see my dissent in Philadelphia Life, supra) arising thereunder should be confined to the procedures designated therein if they are adequate to the task and their pursuit will not cause irreparable harm to the complaining party. In my opinion, the procedures provided are adequate and no irreparable harm appears. It is an a fortiori conclusion, therefore, that there is no merit to appellant’s proposition that the very forum that the statute designates to deal with the questions arising under it has no jurisdiction over those questions. Quite the contrary, it is the only forum that does have jurisdiction.

 Act of June 21, 1939, P. L. 626, as amended, 72 P.S. §5452.1 et seq.; Act of May 22, 1933, P. L. 853, as amended, 72 P.S. §5020.1 et seq.