65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 714

Penalty.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 714. Penalty.

(a) Fines and costs.--Any member of any agency who participates in a meeting with the intent and purpose by that member of violating this chapter commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay:

(1) For a first offense, the costs of prosecution plus a fine of at least $100 and, in the discretion of the sentencing authority, of not more than $1,000.

(2) For a second or subsequent offense, the costs of prosecution plus a fine of at least $500 and, in the discretion of the sentencing authority, of not more than $2,000.

(b) Payment.--An agency shall not make a payment on behalf of or reimburse a member of an agency for a fine or cost resulting from the member's violation of this section.

(July 7, 2011, P.L.270, No.56, eff. 60 days)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case: Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia v. Bagwell

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia v. Bagwell (2017) pacommwct “65 Pa. C.S. § 714. However, unlike the penalty provision in the Sunshine Act, the focus in Section 1305 of the RTKL is not on the mental state of the actor but the actions taken by the agency.”

Smith v. Township of Richmond (2013) pa “2d at 1120 ; see also 65 Pa.C.S. § 714 (making it a summary offense punishable by a fine and the costs of prosecution for an agency member to "participate[ ] in a meeting with the intent and purpose” of violating the Act).”

R.B. Sklaroff, M.D. v. Abington SD (2017) pacommwct “2 respective prayers for relief, he requested fines not exceeding $100, plus the costs of prosecution as set forth in Section 714 of the Act, 65 Pa. C.S. § 714. In its preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, Abington alleged a failure to state a cause of action in…”

M. Buck, R.N., J.D., in her Official Capacity as Bucks County Coroner v. D. Ellis-Marseglia, LCSW, in their Official Cap (2022) pacommwct “9 Here, Common Pleas admits that it reviewed Commissioners’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings not through this narrow standard, but instead by using the more expansive one applicable to summary judgment motions. See R.R. at 327a- 43a.”

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.