SWB YANKEES LLC v. Wintermantel

18 A.3d 1145, 610 Pa. 291, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 1045
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 3, 2011·No. 592 MAL 2010·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issues, as stated by petitioner:

1. Did the Commonwealth Court err by determining that SWB’s operation of a professional baseball team and *292 concessions at a multi-purpose stadium constitutes a “governmental function” within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law?
2. Did the Commonwealth Court err by holding that the information requested in this matter constitutes a “record” within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law?

Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issues, without prejudice to the parties’ ability to argue any or all of those issues as sub-issues of either or both of the above two issues.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SWB YANKEES LLC v. Wintermantel, 18 A.3d 1145, 610 Pa. 291, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 1045 (Pa. 2011).

18 A.3d 1145 (SWB YANKEES LLC v. Wintermantel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SWB YANKEES LLC v. Wintermantel
45 A.3d 1029 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Chester Community Charter School v. Hardy ex rel. Philadelphia Newspaper, LLC
38 A.3d 1079 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Easton Area School District v. Baxter
35 A.3d 1259 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)