Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Bowling v. Office of Open Records
609 Pa. 265
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 2011-03-08
- Topic
- international-arbitration
How later courts describe this case
- reviewing court may supplement record to ensure adequate review; court should consider manner of proceeding most consistent with justice, fairness and expeditious resolution
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bowling v. Office of Open Records. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 37 opinions
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
1. Whether Final Determinations rendered by the OOR are entitled to a deferential standard of review, for*266 which the scope of the court’s review is limited to the record of the OOR?
2. Whether the level of judicial review imposed by the Commonwealth Court, which shall be applied in future appeals of OOR Final Determinations, was proper when the standard and scope of review do not effectuate the statutory process set forth in the RTKL, do not comport with accepted principles of statutory construction of the current RTKL or the process followed under the RTKL’s predecessor, and the level of review does not account for the creation of a new Commonwealth agency as an independent fact-finder?