Smith v. Twp. of Richmond, 65 A.3d 914 (Pa. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Smith v. Twp. of Richmond, 65 A.3d 914 (Pa. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Township of Richmond (pa, 2013-12-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Smith v. Township of Richmond (2×)
Pa. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Twp. of Richmond, — Pa. -, 65 A.3d 914 (2013) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James M. SMITH
v.
TOWNSHIP OF RICHMOND, Berks County, Pennsylvania, Gary J. Angstadt, Ronald L. Kurtz, and Donald H. Brumbach
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 30, 2013.
65 A.3d 914
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

a. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in holding that no “deliberations” took place in violation of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S.A. § 701, et seq., after finding that the record shows that a quorum of the members of the Richmond Township Board of Supervisors held four closed-door meetings with representatives of two neighboring municipalities, a group of citizens, and Le-high Cement — the latter two being opposing parties in pending litigation — to discuss the litigation with a goal of finding information to help them make a decision on how to cast a vote on whether to accept the terms of an anticipated agreement to settle the litigation?
b. Whether the Commonwealth Court erred by holding that no “deliberation” occurs if the final decision is reached “at some later time” or if no “admission” of deliberation is provided by the agency?