Court Opinion

ID: 9391674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 20:09:12.141738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.455322
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                               MIDDLE DISTRICT

 COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND,                      :   No. 17 MAL 2023
                                                :
                     Respondent                 :
                                                :   Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                :   from the Order of the
              v.                                :   Commonwealth Court
                                                :
                                                :
 TOWNSHIP OF COAL,                              :
                                                :
                     Petitioner                 :

                                        ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issues, rephrased for clairty, are:

      (1)    Is compliance with the Refund Act’s unambiguous, statutorily-dictated
             procedures both mandatory and the exclusive means of pursuing refunds
             of allegedly “excessive fees” charged by political subdivisions, or can
             refunds be obtained by a claimant’s employing alternative “procedures” not
             legislatively authorized by the General Assembly?

      (2)    Did the Commonwealth Court’s unreported decision below implicitly
             “overrule” case law holding the Refund Act’s statutory procedures are
             mandatory and should be “narrowly construed,” see Stranahan v. County of
             Mercer, 697 A.2d 1049, 1053 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), and create alternative
             procedures which were previously unavailable under the Refund Act?