CoolSpring Stone Supply, Inc., v. County of Fayette, North Union Township and Laurel Highlands School District (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-108-2006] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COOLSPRING STONE SUPPLY, INC., : : Appellant : : : v. : : : COUNTY OF FAYETTE, NORTH UNION : TOWNSHIP AND LAUREL HIGHLANDS : SCHOOL DISTRICT, : : Appellees : No. 55 WAP 2005 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, entered May 25, 2005, at No.128 CD 2005, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, entered January 5, 2005, at No. 141 of 2004GD. ARGUED: September 11, 2006 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: AUGUST 20, 2007 I join the majority opinion. I write only to note that, in the IOGA case, I joined Mr. Justice Nigro s concurrence, which relied on the special characteristics of oil and gas to support the conclusion that such minerals were beyond the reach of Section 201 of the General County Assessment Law. I appreciated that oil and gas have been termed real estate in various decisions, but applying a strict construction of the statute most favorable to the taxpayers, I found sufficient ambiguity in Section 201 with regard to these minerals, in light of their vagrant and fugacious character, to support the taxpayers position. However, with regard to solid minerals attached to the earth, on or beneath its surface, there seems to me to be no room for any similar ambiguity -- these are almost universally understood to be real estate. See generally 58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals §141 (2007) ( Minerals in place are generally held to be a part of the real estate with all the attributes and incidents peculiar to the ownership of land, but after their removal from the land they become personalty. ). Thus, I conclude that Section 201 was plainly intended to reach them. See 72 P.S. §5020-201(a) (providing for taxation of [a]ll real estate and all other real estate not exempt by law from taxation ). [J-108-2006] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
