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.
§ 713. Business transacted at unauthorized meeting void.
A legal challenge under this chapter shall be filed within 30 days from the date of
a meeting which is open, or within 30 days from the discovery of any action that occurred
at a meeting which was not open at which this chapter was violated, provided that,
in the case of a meeting which was not open, no legal challenge may be commenced more
than one year from the date of said meeting. The court may enjoin any challenged action
until a judicial determination of the legality of the meeting at which the action
was adopted is reached. Should the court determine that the meeting did not meet the
requirements of this chapter, it may in its discretion find that any or all official
action taken at the meeting shall be invalid. Should the court determine that the
meeting met the requirements of this chapter, all official action taken at the meeting
shall be fully effective.
Cross References. Section 713 is referred to in section 710.1 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Day v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 931 A.2d 646 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 6× “violation of the Act, the panel invalidated the Commission’s termination decision pursuant to 65 Pa.C.S. § 713, 4 vacated the trial court’s orders, and remanded the case to the trial court with a directive to remand the matter to the Commission with instructions to reconsider…”
Riverwalk Casino, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 926 A.2d 926 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 2× “65 Pa.C.S. § 713. The Board asserts that Riverwalk knew of the purported Sunshine Act violation no later than December 20, 2006, and that Riverwalk should have raised its claim within 30 days thereafter.”
Smith v. Twp. of Richmond, 82 A.3d 407 (Pa. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Finally, they state that Section 713 — which only gives courts discretion to invalidate actions taken at meetings that violate the Act, see 65 Pa.C.S. § 713— would not authorize the invalidation of the final vote taken at the May 10th public meeting in any event, since that…”
Kennedy v. Upper Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 834 A.2d 1104 (Pa. 2003).
“On these subjects it will here suffice to note that the 1998 Sunshine Act, like the 1986 Act before it, provides: Should the court determine that the meeting did not meet the requirements of this act, it may in its discretion, find that any and all official action taken at the…”
Belitskus v. Hamlin Twp., 764 A.2d 669 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Before addressing the merits of this argument we must first determine whether Belitskus failed to initiate this action in a timely manner as alleged in Supervisor’s preliminary objections because failure to initiate this action within the statutory limitations of 65 Pa.”
Alekseev v. City Council of Philadelphia, 8 A.3d 311 (Pa. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See 65 Pa. C.S. § 713 ("Should the court determine that the meeting did not meet the requirements of this chapter, it may in its discretion find that any or all official action taken at the meeting shall be invalid.”
Smith v. Hanover Zoning Hearing Bd., 78 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
“65 Pa.C.S. § 713. Here, the record shows that at the conclusion of the second hearing on February 20, 2012, Board Member Vance Stab-ley stated that the Zoning Ordinance prohibited the proposed billboards in the Shopping Center and Local Business districts and that he believed…”
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.