Pa. Cons. Stat. » 37 Pa. Cons. Stat. (HISTORICAL) / Chapter 1
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

37 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102 (2026)

 Declaration of policy.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 102.  Declaration of policy.

It is hereby determined and declared as a matter of legislative finding and policy that:

(1)  Section 27 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania makes the Commonwealth trustee for the preservation of the historic values of the environment.

(2)  The conservation of Pennsylvania's historic and natural heritage and the preservation of public records, historic documents and objects of historic interest, and the identification, restoration and preservation of architecturally and historically significant sites and structures are duties vested primarily in the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

(3)  The irreplaceable historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural heritage of this Commonwealth should be preserved and protected for the benefit of all the people, including future generations.

(4)  The preservation and protection of historic resources in this Commonwealth promotes the public health, prosperity and general welfare.

(5)  The rapid social and economic development of our contemporary society threatens to destroy the remaining vestiges of our historic heritage.

(6)  It is in the public interest for the Commonwealth, its citizens and its political subdivisions to engage in comprehensive programs of historic preservation for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of all the people, including future generations.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., 122 A.3d 462 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., 122 A.3d 462 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “§ 103, Aqua is neither the owner of the property nor the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission charged with the preservation of historic resources, see 37 Pa.”
Unionville-Chadds Ford Sch. Dist. v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 692 A.2d 1136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997). “” 37 Pa.C.S. § 102. By providing all of these services, Long-wood Gardens relieves the government of part of its burden and advances the government’s role in protecting the people’s eonsti-tutionally sanctioned prerogatives.”
In Re: Appeal of the Coatesville Area S.D. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “Section 102 of the History Code, 37 Pa.C.S. § 102. We believe that a function consistent with the purposes of the ERA as elaborated by the History Code is a purpose recognized as important and beneficial to the public and advances educational, moral, and social objectives.”
PA Historical & Museum Comm'n v. A. Ferretti (OOR) (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2026). · cites it 2× “” See 37 Pa.C.S. §§ 102(2), 301(2), 301(4). The OOR rejected the fact that Ancestry approached the Commission about the prospect of digitizing, as maintenance of the records falls within the Commission’s governmental function, and “the [Commission]’s records are still the same…”
Misingwa Land Trust v. Bd. of Commissioners of the Cnty. of Beaver (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2026). “3d at 1160 (quoting 37 Pa. C.S. §102). Thus, we held that Huston Properties advanced a charitable purpose, notwithstanding its use of the historic building as a rental property.”
— 37 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(2) — 1 case
PA Historical & Museum Comm'n v. A. Ferretti (OOR) (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2026). “” See 37 Pa.C.S. §§ 102(2), 301(2), 301(4). The OOR rejected the fact that Ancestry approached the Commission about the prospect of digitizing, as maintenance of the records falls within the Commission’s governmental function, and “the [Commission]’s records are still the same…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.