Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bowling v. Office of Open Records

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 20, 2013No. 20 MAP 2011Published

1DissentJustice Todd

I respectfully dissent. The Right to Know Law (“RTKL”)1 contains a number of inconsistent provisions, making a determination of the proper standard of review exceedingly difficult, and calling for the General Assembly to set forth a clear articulation of the proper standard and scope of review of Office of Open Records (“OOR”) decisions. In the absence of such guidance, however, I submit that issues concerning the granting or denial of access to public records should be reviewed by appellate courts pursuant to the traditional, and issue specific, standards of review set forth below. My…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WallsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Bowling v. Office of Open RecordsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. In the Interest of DoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API