Murtagh v. County of Berks

NIX, C.J., LARSEN, Before FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY, MONTEMURO, JJ.

FLAHERTY, Justice. Merry Murtagh J. other appeal an order of Commonwealth reversing an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks remanding with instruc- tions to dismiss the action for lack jurisdic- matter tion. 144 Pa.Cmwlth. 601 A.2d 1352. The trial court had concluded that it subject had matter over a class action brought by taxpayers the against the County of Berks government and other local § units under 42 U.S.C. challenging the constitutionality of the manner which prop- erty is assessed for real estate purposes. tax taxpayers,

The representing a class of purchasers recent of real estate in County, Berks filed an amended complaint, after exhausting state remedies, administrative against the local governments.2 They asserted that the local governments had (1988) § 1. 42 U.S.C. remedy creates a for violations of federal rights by persons acting committed under color of state law. Section provides as follows: who, statute, Every person ordinance, any regulation, under color of custom, ..., usage, subjects, of State subjected, or causes to be any citizen of the United person jurisdic- States or other within the deprivation tion any rights, thereof to the privileges, or immunities laws, by secured the Constitution and shall party be liable to the law, injured in an action at equity, proper suit in proceeding or other for redress. taxpayers Berks, originally 2. The County sued the County the Berks Board for the Assessment and Revision of County Taxes and the Berks Appeals. Board of Assessment county The and the board filed a preliminaty objections number of taxpayers’ to complaint. The trial court only objections sustained one of finding taxpayers had This Stranger” policy. discriminatory a “Welcome adopted recently purchased realty the reassessment policy results no modifications purchase price making while based recently not sold.3 comparable property the assessment equal practice violated their alleged that taxpayers The and, be- the Fourteenth Amendment protection rights under law, of state were done under color cause the reassessments § of 42 a violation U.S.C. 1983.4 constituted objec- preliminary filed government The local defendants on, things, other complaint among based tions to the amended jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed a matter lack objections, for and certified issue preliminary both sets 1311(b). Commonwealth pursuant Pa.R.A.P. appeal order, granted petitions permission appeal for separate appeals, and reversed. consolidated the courts must whether state question presented challenging 1983 class actions the constitu- entertain section taxing indispensable parties. authorities which were failed sue result, joining taxing complaint an all As a filed amended cities, nearly boroughs, townships county, authorities districts, governments. to as local school herein referred embody system of the Commonwealth The Constitution statutes rate accord- requires taxed at a uniform of taxation Const, VIII, 1;§ See art. ing to its estimated actual market value. Pa. seq. seq. § et 5342 et 72 Pa.S. 5020-101 county recently assess- The Commonwealth Court invalidated tax county uniformity it scheme where found that the violated ment equalization requirement of requirement of the state Constitution and City governing third-class counties. See the statute assessments Lancaster, 143 Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d Lancaster v. (1991). complaint taxpayers’ is that the "Welcome 4. The substance of the Stranger” policy County de and of Berks causes discrimination facto Equal Clause of the Amendment to violates the Protection Fourteenth cite, authority Taxpayers as for their the United States Constitution. claim, AlleghenyPittsburgh v. Webster Coal Co. Commissioner 336, 633, There, (1989). County, 488 109 S.Ct. 102 L.Ed.2d 688 U.S. engendered by Supreme Court held that the de discrimination facto system Stranger” policy in a "current value" taxation "Welcome Hahn, - Equal Nordlinger v. violated Protection Clause. See also said 2326, -, (1992). 1 112 S.Ct. 120 L.Ed.2d case, procedural posture inappropriate of this it Given the taxpayers’ comment on the merits of case. tionality of a tax assessment county’s procedure plain- tiffs judicial have not exhausted state administrative and remedies. local governments contend that the trial court jurisdiction does not have matter such over a section action, arguing that state courts should the di- follow rection of the federal courts and refrain from entertaining such plain, suits where there are and adequate complete state administrative and remedies.5 Federal routinely courts have refrained from interfering with the administration of state taxes Injunc due to the Tax Act, 1341, In Fair tion principles comity. U.S.C. Assessment In Real Estate v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 102 177, (1981), Supreme L.Ed.2d 271 Court the United States ruled that actions for injunctive relief and monetary from a damages assessment procedure barred in the by principle federal courts That comity. comity court said that concerns congress motivated pass Injunction Tax prohibits Act which a district court from enjoining, assessment, suspending restraining the levy or governments argue 5. The local further that some state courts have See, Chilivis, entertaining e.g., refrained from such suits. Backus v. 500, (1976). pre-date important Ga. 224 S.E.2d 370 Since these cases infra, probative cases discussed we do not find them presented. the issue require Courts that do their courts to hear section 1983 actions before exhaustion of state Mississippi remedies include Commission, Jersey. Mississippi New Burrell v. State Tax 536 So.2d (Miss.1988) Grille, Bung's Bar & Township, Inc. v. Florence Burrell, (1985). N.J.Super. 502 A.2d 1198 In the court held that taxpayers’ brought state courts must hear pursuant actions to Section courts, they because have concurrent with the federal Supremacy because the Clause of the United States Constitution re- quires that state Congress, courts enforce the valid enactments of one, which section principle comity 1983 is and because the did not Bar, apply Bung’s Superior to state courts. Court held that the actions, state courts must Jersey entertain section 1983 since New law controversy demands that all issues of a be included at the same time in remedy lawsuit and the available administrative did not allow for civil rights claims. Neither court addressed the exhaustion of remedies argument. Munn, (1990); See also Nutbrown Hogan v. 311 Or. 811 P.2d 131 Musolf, (1991), 163 Wis.2d 471 N.W.2d 216 and L.L. Bean Inc. v. (Tenn.1991). cases, Bracey, 817 S.W.2d 292 In these section 1983 actions were entertained state courts.

55 and speedy law a plain, tax under state any collection of in the courts of such state.6 may be had remedy efficient 179, enacting 103, By at 275. at at 70 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. statute, and fiscal recognized autonomy that congress that are not systems their tax stability of states survive best when 102-03, at courts. 454 U.S. scrutiny federal 179, Supreme Court at at 275. The 70 L.Ed.2d monetary a similar action for also ruled that States United for long provides as the state barred as damages likewise remedies, actions because such adequate complete and plain, systems revenue collection intrusive to the states’ just are as under the injunctive specifically relief barred the actions for as 114-15, 185, 70 at 102 S.Ct. at Injunction Act. 454 U.S. Tax stated that such at 282. The court then L.Ed.2d rights by federal state remedies protection of their are to seek com- plain, adequate, are and those remedies provided that of the decisions seek review state may ultimately plete 116, 102 States. 454 U.S. at Supreme Court the United 186, at 70 L.Ed.2d 283.7 Ct. 5. its not bound Fair Assessment and courts are

State Act its terms Injunction applies by very The Tax progeny. courts, courts, enjoining from not state preclude danger is no of federal court there tax schemes. Likewise, based misunderstanding. abstention interference section 1983 cause of has no when a comity application is no risk of brought in state courts because there action is federal court interference.8 provides Injunction 28 U.S.C. that: The Tax Act

6. enjoin, suspend not or restrain assess- The district courts shall ment, plain, levy tax under state law where or collection remedy speedy may be had in the courts of such state. and efficient significant difference between remedies The Court discerned no adequate, complete” phrase is "plain, as the used which are comity, equitable constraint under and those articulate the doctrine of efficient,” meaning the Tax "plain, speedy within the Assessment, 102 S.Ct. at 186 Injunction Act. Fair 454 U.S. at n. at 283 n. 8. n. 70 L.Ed.2d hand, courts have followed Fair Assessment On the other the federal case, Properties, e.g., Inc. Taxpayers’ Sunderland in cases similar to There, Berks, (E.D.Pa.1990). challenge F.Supp. The local nonetheless the state governments argue courts should section 1983 claims until hearing abstain from judicial state administrative and taxpayers have exhausted They appear argue plaintiffs remedies. to that section 1983 plaintiffs state court should be no better off than section 1983 they in federal court. should be to ex- required haust the administrative and remedies set forth in the (TCCAL)9 Third Assessment Law in the County Class (GCAL).10 County General Assessment Law Under both policy county's Strangers” “Welcome was to dismissed court 1937, upon comity Injunction based and the Tax Act of 28 U.S.C. § 1341. 1931, 1379, amended, 26, §§ 9. Act of June P.L. as 72 P.S. 5342-5350. commonly This act does not have an official name but is referred to as County the Third Class Assessment Law. County The Third Class Assessment Law creates a three-member (board) appeals county. Aggrieved taxpay- board of assessment in each appeal county pleas ers to the board and then to the common court. property jurisdic- The board must cause annual assessment of within its TCCAL; 5342, Property §§ tion. Section 1 and 3 of the 72 P.S. 5344. 8(b) duly owners to these assessments must notified. Section TCCAL; 5349(b). property § aggrieved of the 72 P.S. A owner who is assessment, by any changed or not whether the assessment has been right previous year, appeal has a to to the from board for relief. TCCAL; 5349(c). 8(c) § appeal Section of the 72 P.S. When such an filed, person notify taxing has been the board must each and each power compel district which has an interest and has the the attend- 8(d) furnishing and the of ance witnesses documents. Section of the TCCAL; 5349(d). § 72 P.S. County provides Section 9 of the Third Class Assessment Law further aggrieved property may appeal owner the final decision of the county pleas. § board to the court of common 72 P.S. The pleas proceed Appeal Corp., court of common will de novo. U.S. Steel 435, (1970). 436 Pa. 260 A.2d 779 22, 1933, amended, May §§ Act of 853 as P.L. P.S. 5020-601— 5020-602. County applies County, The General Assessment Law to Berks where County it is not inconsistent with the Third Class Assessment Act. Art. I, GCAL; § § 105 of the 72 P.S. 5020-105. Truck Terminal Motels America, County Appeals, Inc. v. Berks Board Assessment 127 Pa. (1989), petition appeal Cmwlth. 561 A.2d 1305 for allowance of denied, (1990). procedural remedy 525 Pa. 581 A.2d 576 It has a County similar to that of the Third Class Assessment Act. The General provides county Assessment Law that the board in each shall V, property appeals § hear of tax owners’ assessments. Art. 511 of the GCAL; 72 P.S. 5020-511. The decision of the board can then be appealed pleas proceeding, to a court of common for a de novo any property who schemes, aggrieved by owner is assessment to a board of right appeal tax has a assessment pleas court which then of common appeals, and case, we of the resolution of this light de novo. proceed state and do not decide here whether need not context of a complete plain, adequate remedies section 1983 class action.11 has consis of the United States section courts to entertain

tently duty affirmed the exists, actions, regardless except valid excuse state administrative have exhausted plaintiffs whether under section Municipalities may be sued judicial remedies. ordinance, custom regulation or policy, a municipal when City York De injury. Monell v. New constitutional inflicts Services, 436 U.S. partment Social (1978). 1980, Supreme Court the the L.Ed.2d 611 Since concur clear that state courts have has made United States 1983 federal courts to hear section rent with jurisdiction Thibowtot, 1, 2502, 65 v. 100 S.Ct. Maine 448 U.S. claims. (1980). federal state courts entertain L.Ed.2d 555 When to, action, of, a and the defenses federal rights causes V, 518.1, Superior Supreme appeals and Courts. Art. further GCAL; 5020-518.1-2, 518.2, §§ 72 P.S. 5020-519. and 519 adequate plain, are Taxpayers that the state remedies not contend precluded complete they seeking are from an award of and because shifting policy §§ 1983 attorneys’ fees via fee and embodied light resolution of this 1988. We need not address issue case. Pennsylvania consistently It federal have is noted that the courts adequate, provide taxpayer plain, a both of laws a and ruled that these See, (3d e.g., Bamford, 810 complete remedy. 582 F.2d Garrett v. Cir.1978). properly court the district court Garrett held entertaining challenging class from a section 1983 action abstained by property discriminatoiy property brought alleged tax assessments County. action was in Berks The court held that the class owners Act, Injunction precluded since the Third in federal court under the Tax Law, affording appeal administrative with Class Assessment class, speedy provided plain, judicial them review remedy. efficient Id. at rulings predated significant in section 1983 Garrett litigation attorneys’ fees it and did address the issue. not probative address value case were we to would have little to this complete. adequate plain, issue of whether the state remedies are so that the outcome federal law action are defined cause of same, if regardless be the of action would of federal causes Rose, 496 U.S. Howlett v. or federal forum. decided a state (1990).12 332, 2430, 2442, L.Ed.2d 356, 375, 110 S.Ct. excuse, courts have no Also, in of a valid the absence parties jurisdiction when accept discretion decline court. 496 U.S. the state before controversy properly 2439, 110 L.Ed.2d at 348. 369, 110 at at S.Ct. refuses when a state court may

A exist valid excuse to hear the case court competent it has no jurisdiction because administration, judicial state rule of or of a neutral because Casey, law. Felder v. by federal preempted unless that rule is (1988). The 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 131, 487 U.S. 108 S.Ct. treat competent court of that a state requirement necessarily include of the land does not law as the law competent create a court that the state requirement it a within presented. claim is in which the federal to hear the case Howlett, 2441, at 372, at 110 L.Ed.2d 110 S.Ct. 496 U.S. have includ rules of administration Neutral 350-351. and state claims dismissal of both federal authorizing those ed defendant was a resident nor the plaintiff where neither York, Co., H.R. N.H. & Douglas v. New state, the forum (1929), 355, where the cause 377, 49 73 L.Ed. 747 U.S. Herb jurisdiction, territorial of the court’s action arose outside (1945), Pitcairn, 89 L.Ed. 789 65 S.Ct. U.S. non conveniens appropriately the doctrine of forum Mayfield, rel. R. Co. v. Missouri ex Southern applied. (1950). 71 S.Ct. 95 L.Ed. appear administration to be state rules of Neutral cases, however, in situations where in section 1983 preempted of the forum state and defendant are residents plaintiff the in federal law is enforceable 12. The Court in Howlett reaffirmed that pursuant passed to it are because the Constitution and laws state courts by legislature. 496 passed the state as much laws in the states as laws L.Ed.2d at 347. The Court held at 110 S.Ct. at 110 U.S. immunity to a school sovereign defense is not available a state-law brought in a state court that otherwise in a section 1983 action board available if the jurisdiction when such a defense would not be has 361-83, brought at 110 S.Ct. were in a federal forum. 496 U.S. action 2434-47, at at 110 L.Ed.2d 343-58. The in forum state. the cause of action arises the and that section the has ruled Court of United States state administrative not to exhaust plaintiffs required in 1983 suits federal courts instituting before section remedies Florida, 457 Patsy Regents See v. Board or state courts. (1982) L.Ed.2d and Felder 102 S.Ct. U.S. Felder, nine months after Casey, supra, respectively. who ar- police officers being allegedly beaten Milwaukee later charge conduct that was disorderly Felder a rested against city court action the and Felder filed state dropped, He that the alleged of the officers section 1983. certain under his motivated and violated beating racially and arrest were the the Fourth Fourteenth Amendments to under rights the The officers moved to dismiss States Constitution. United comply of Felder’s failure to Wisconsin’s suit because in that: provided, part, statute. The statute notice-of-claim against or may suit state court state brought before officer, governmental entity plaintiff, the within local notify of the days alleged injury, must defendant plaintiffs claim and the circumstances and amount liable; to then intent hold the named defendant defendant relief; 120 days grant requested had or disallow the and the receiving bring must suit within six months notice plaintiff 134-37, 2305-06, disallowance. 487 at at L.Ed.2d 135-37. a section 1983 action is

The Felder Court held that when court, in the notice-of-claim statute brought state Wisconsin’s its effect with section 1983’s purpose conflicted both to the objectives preempted pursuant and was Su- remedial explained that while states retain Clause. court premacy authority procedures governing the rules prescribe courts, permit does not states authority suits their Rather, right. of a federal conditions on vindication place meant individuals immediate access to congress provide sought did that those who contemplate federal courts and not rights state courts could be to vindicate their federal seek in the first instance from required to redress precipitated inju- their hostility rights whose to those officials 147-53, 2311-14, ries. 487 U.S. at 108 S.Ct. at 101 L.Ed.2d at 143-47. Felder court found no merit to the claim that requirement imposed by

exhaustion the state statute is essen- de minimis because the tially statutory settlement period entailed none of the additional or undue expense delay typical- remedies, ly statutory associated with administrative right scheme did not eliminate a claimant’s to seek full com- pensation through designed suit scheme was specious emphasized to sift out claims. That court that sec- tion 1983 actions in court” and exist “belong independent any other or administrative relief that legal may available as a or state except congress matter law has expressly imposed requirement.13 an exhaustion The court designed said that to sift out claims” “specious scheme from the stream of that can inundate local complaints govern- sovereign immunity “manifestly ments the absence of objective inconsistent” with central of the rights civil 148-50, 2312-13, statutes. U.S. S.Ct. at L.Ed.2d at 144-45. now address the critical question

We whether the com- pleas mon courts of this Commonwealth must entertain sec- requiring tion 1983 cases without the exhaustion of state judicial administrative remedies. We do not have di-0 issue; Supreme rection from the United States Court on this rather, have are competing we lines of cases and asked to apparent resolve the conflict. that, argue

One may according precedent, should be no better off in state court they than federal court with to a section regard challenging constitutionality case of a tax assess- property to Fair Assessment procedure. According ment prog- and its Congress requirement specific did establish an exhaustion for a class actions, brought by prisoners challenging of section 1983 those adult confinement, Rights the conditions of their in the Civil of Institutional- Felder, ized Persons Act of 94 Stat. 42 U.S.C. 1997e. statute, congress, enacting expressly recog- the Court stated that working change nized that it was in the law. 487 U.S. at S.Ct. at 101 L.Ed.2d at 144. exhaust state administrative eny, plaintiffs must bringing case before in a tax assessment remedies argument action in federal court. section 1983 continues, also exhaust state administra- the must taxpayers a bringing before section judicial tive and remedies tax constitutionality property of a as- challenging action the in state court. procedure sessment that, Court according Supreme to U.S. may argue One also exhaustion of state statu- require this court cannot precedent, requirement imposed If an exhaustion were tory remedies. Felder, then, has procedure like the state a taxpayers, on the in right of a federal places conditions the vindication though statutory is so the state’s state court. This even right seek full not eliminate a claimant’s scheme does Further, suit. we are mindful the compensation through in aspect present case another that was not taxpayers’ has Felder, of administrative and which is that exhaustion state may the case entail the addi- judicial taxpayers’ remedies in delay typically associated state statu- expense tional the relief tory according taxpayers without the remedies See, Property v. Board sought. Borough Greentree of of Assessment, County, 459 Appeals Allegheny and Review of (1974).14 Pa. 328 A.2d 819 exhausted Here, reflects that the have the record and, pursuing administrative without their procedures state remedies, a 1983 class judicial seek to maintain section state case, command the Court In this Felder and Howlett action. of Common Pleas of Berks exercise complete action the requiring over a section 1983 without of statutory remedies. While exhaustion exhaustion of state Greentree, pleas Court ruled that courts of common have this equitable jurisdiction charging hear that the Assessment Act cases uniformity provision permitting triennial assessments violated the equal protection of clause clause of the State Constitution and Constitution, statutory appeal procedure appearing Federal little, utility determining any, in the would be of if Assessment Act constitutionality provision any from and where benefit derived filing county property appeals with the board assessment individual inconvenience, expense by delay outweighed would be far involved. courts, exhaus- required federal state remedies as the courts of this state insofar tion is not required constitutionality of a challenging the action is a class action assessment. This is so because system property tax court to refrain from comity that causes principle of tax assessment cases over section 1983 exercising jurisdiction court, challenging, action has no relevance to a class tax assessment. constitutionality system have plaintiffs situation that This creates the anomalous respect types to state courts with these quicker access to the federal courts. This class actions than section 1983 to conflict with appear result does not is not right of a federal decision because the vindication administration. This resolu- state rules of shackled precedent to conflict with appear tion also does not Greentree, Further, this reso- Borough supra. Court. See of contend, not, state and governments disrupt lution as local will because, argue, the taxpayers tax administration as local class-action taxpayers’ such as the challenges constitutional will, run, reduce long significantly the challenge probably inconvenience, delay expense and involved inefficiency, the in many over the same issue countless individual lawsuits forums.15 different administrative hand, courts if we were to refuse access the On the other statutory respect remedies with to this before exhaustion action, directly conflict with of class such refusal would type hold that Court directives. we challenging are a class of the plaintiffs property of the which tax assess- constitutionality system made, their section 1983 suit in they ments are can maintain brief, page governments, on 27 of their state that because 15. The local press appeal, "undisputed they taxpayers do not the issue on it is that objections constitutional before the can secure consideration of the de novo review in the court appeals through board assessment however, argue point pleas.” governments, no common local further, perhaps recognition would that the likelihood that the issue addressed, side, by very people fully who on the administrative present things depend the continued existence of the scheme of quite small indeed. statutory exhausting their first court without pleas common remedies.16 properly of Berks Pleas

The Court Common case in this matter it had determined Court to Commonwealth matter is remanded and this con- local contentions governments’ address direction in their C.D. appeal tained reversed, re- case of the Commonwealth Order manded. this case.

LARSEN, J., in the decision of participate not did J., opinion. MONTEMURO, concurring files a CAPPY, J., dissenting opinion. files a Justice, MONTEMURO, concurring. our courts majority acknowledges that

By implication, tax challenge to a state obligation entertain a 1983 an have I be- remedy. Because the existence of despite I join an always obligation, had such that our courts have lieve Opinion the Court. CAPPY, Justice, dissenting. majority’s holding from the

I dissent respectfully the consti- challenge class who seek taxpayers, Appellant main- system, may tax assessment tutionality pleas common action their under U.S.C. tain remedies. exhausting statutory their state without first court background majority’s I disagree do not Although law, majority’s I differ with the summary of relevant in the United States conflict” “apparent resolution (Majority opin- cases.” lines of “competing Court’s Supreme 184.) ion at an individu- day for to address the issue whether We wait another section plaintiffs, can a plaintiff, opposed as to a class of maintain al exhausting pleas without action in common court a and not challenge is to individual assessment where the an remedies system property tax assessment. challenge to the entire

First, section 1983 creates a it must be remembered that Court in Fair Assess Supreme cause of action. The federal 100, 102 McNary, Association v. U.S. ment in Real Estate (1981), held that specifically 70 L.Ed.2d 271 S.Ct. of state administrative and action exhaustion requires federal nature of state tax due to the sensitive judicial remedies interpreta It makes no sense to undercut Court’s issues. Further, I interests of tion of federal law. believe frame that state courts defer the federal comity1 dictate Supreme the United States carefully work established Court, in Fair Assessment deferred just as the federal court disrupt a rule that would not a fashioning to the state courts majority’s ap tax scheme. The carefully fashioned state encouraging result of creates the anomalous proach section 1983 pursue to flock to state courts claimants actions, of the federal rule is to precise purpose when the deal with the matter under state may ensure that state courts law first.

Moreover, eliminates majority’s approach virtually tax the state courts to examine the state opportunity for of the Commonwealth. scheme under the laws Constitution for the sensitive nature of state tax The concern precise schemes, Supreme motivated the United States which Assessment, motivate state courts to Fair should fortiori majority’s under state law first. The examine those schemes and, opportunity again, produces obliterates this approach stronger, virtually exclusive incongruous creating result of in state court —rather federal forum for section 1983 claims priority. action should take than in federal court where the Casey, Court’s decision Felder (1988), 131, 108 2302, 101 in no way compels L.Ed.2d 123 It must be remembered that for the majority’s result. of state remedies as a require state courts to exhaustion only impose to a section 1983 action would prerequisite important comity ways. Judicial It to remember works both principle the courts of one comity is in accordance with which “[t]he give will laws and decisions of state or effect another, obligation, but out of deference and not as a matter of (6th 1990). respect.” ed. Dictionary Black's Law that would requirement same in state court the plaintiffs upon court. Felder simply prohib- in them federal imposed upon conflicts with rule where the rule of a state application its the its enforcement of objectives section the remedial outcomes produce different “frequently predictably will whether the claim asserted litigation solely based on § 1983 108 S.Ct. at court.” 487 U.S. in state federal exhaustion refusal an Ironically, majority’s impose a situation where different just such requirement creates litigation “based in section 1983 will be reached outcomes or federal claim is asserted on whether solely court.” case, the Court that, in the this

I circumstances believe defer to the framework established should I respectfully must dissent. courts.

634 A.2d E. Matter of James LYNCH. Disciplinary Docket No. No. Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court of 16, 1993. Nov.

ORDER PER CURIAM: November, 1993, E. NOW, 16th James day

AND from the of law the having suspended practice been Lynch months, for effective Jersey of New three period State Jersey New by Order June 7, 1993; been Lynch having James E. dated June said 5, 1993, inform claim August this Court directed comparable the identical or imposition he has would be unwarranted this Commonwealth discipline

Case Details

Case Name: Murtagh v. County of Berks

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Nov 10, 1993

Citation: 634 A.2d 179

Docket Number: 34 M.D. Appeal Docket 1992

Court Abbreviation: Pa.