Summary
In McGiffick v. City of Pittsburgh, 415 Pa. 581, 203 A.2d 480 (1964), the Supreme Court affirmed per curiam an order of the Allegheny County Court specifically upholding the city's classification, continued in the present ordinance, of commercial parking places as taxable and residential as not subject to levy.
Summary of this case from Alco Parking Corp. v. City of PittsburghOpinion
April 27, 1964.
September 29, 1964.
Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 168 and 195, March T., 1964, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1963, No. 85 Misc. Docket, in case of C. A. McGillick, trading and doing business as Auto Park, Nathan Siegman and Morris Siegman, trading and doing business as Siegman Brothers, et al. v. City of Pittsburgh. Order affirmed.
Appeal by taxpayers from city ordinance imposing tax on gross receipts from commercial parking transactions.
Plaintiffs' appeal dismissed except that, to the extent the Pittsburgh Public Parking Authority is excluded from the term "operator" in the ordinance, appeal sustained, opinion by VAN DER VOORT, J. Plaintiffs and defendant, respectively, appealed.
Charles F. McKenna, with him Strassburger McKenna, for appellant and appellee.
David W. Craig, City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh, appellant and appellee.
Order affirmed.