Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare Anchor | green | “a party that voluntarily participates in a public program and is receiving and disbursing public funds in furtherance of that program has no legitimate basis to assert that these activities are private and should be shielded from public scrutiny.” | 4 |
| 2 | Bowling v. Office of Open Records | green | “in 2008, the general assembly enacted the rtkl, which replaced the right to know act and provided for significantly broadened access to public records.” | 3 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Eiseman | green | “disbursement of funds by an agency.” | 3 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Eiseman | green | “indeed, it would be anomalous for our legislature to explicitly exclude trade secrets as an exception to disclosure of financial records in section 708(c) of the rtkl, while simultaneously implying that trade secrets are an exception requiring disclosure of the same financial re…” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.