Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Pittsburgh v. Silver

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 16, 2012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*302CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge COVEY.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Office of Open Records (OOR) does not have jurisdiction under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 to address the disclosure of documents in an attorney’s case file. However, I concur with the majority that the settlement negotiations are not subject to disclosure.

On October 1, 2010, Jonathan D. Silver and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (collectively the Gazette) submitted a request under the RTKL to the City of Pittsburgh (City) requesting access to and copies of all correspondence beginning…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McDermott, Inc. v. AmClydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod & GutnickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. New Castle Area School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API