Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County v. Pennsylvania Office of Open Records

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Director of the Office of Domestic Relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the RTKL because the director was “administrative staff” of the unified judicial system as defined in the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102
• holding that the Director of the Office of Domestic Relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the RTKL because the director was “administrative staff” of the unified judicial system as defined in the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102
• holding that the Director of the Office of Domestic Relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the RTKL because the director was “administrative staff” of the unified judicial system as defined in the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102
• holding that the Director of the Office of Domestic Relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the RTKL because the director was “administrative staff” of the unified judicial system as defined in the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102
• stating records of a judicial agency are “not subject to the jurisdiction of the OOR” and the OOR’s attempt to expand that jurisdiction in a RTKL appeal to order disclosure of such records violated the separation of powers doctrine
• action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief by Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).