Harristown Development Corp. v. Commonwealth
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentDoyle, Judge
The majority, in my view, analyzes the situation before us incorrectly. It holds that Harristown Development Corporation (HDC) does not fall within the definition of an “agency” either in the Sunshine Act or the Right to Know Law. This is true. The majority then concludes that HDC is not an agency. The error of this analysis is that it ignores Act 153. The very purpose of Act 153 was to amend the definition of “agency” under the Sunshine Act and the Right to Know Law. The majority’s view implies *192that Act 153 has no legal effect. It is, however, an act of the General Assembly like any other…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Tenney v. BrandhoveSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Gravel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Eastland v. United States Servicemen's FundSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Doe v. McMillanSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.