# Commonwealth v. Office of Open Records

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 10, 2014 · 628 Pa. 163

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969361

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board v. OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS, Eastern Pennsylvania Citizens Against Gambling and James D. Schneller, Intervenor Valley Forge Convention Center Partners, LP, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 10, 2014
- **Citations:** 628 Pa. 163; 103 A.3d 1276; 2014 Pa. LEXIS 2928
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Saylor, Stevens, Todd
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969361

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “statutory language must be read in context, that is, in ascertaining legislative intent, every portion of statutory language is to be read together and in conjunction with the remaining statutory language, and construed with reference to the entire statute as a whole”
- rejecting an argument in support of ambiguity that “improperly” viewed the language in question “in isolation,” rather than reading it “in conjunction with the rest of the statute,” which revealed unambiguous textual evidence of the legislature’s intent
- rejecting the argument that the statute is ambiguous because "the notion that this language is ambiguous depends upon improperly viewing it in isolation."

## Opinion text

Justice STEVENS,
concurring.
I join the Majority holding that request-ors must address their Right to Know Law requests to the designated open-records officer in the first instance.
I specifically acknowledge the crippling effect that would occur on legislators’ constituent service if the Commonwealth Court interpretation of the RTKL in the instant case were upheld.
As indicated by the Amicus Curiae brief for the General Assembly:
The 253 elected members of the Senate and House of Representatives have offices in the Capitol and in their legis *1289 lative districts to provide records and information about legislation and government services to their constituents. Most of the requests for information are made and answered informally and efficiently.
General Assembly’s brief at 2.
To treat every written request for records as a RTKL request would have a major, negative effect on the ability of Pennsylvania legislators to carry out routine, daily constituent service.
Therefore, in addition to the cogent legal analysis by the Majority Opinion of this Court, I note the importance of allowing legislators to efficiently and routinely provide service to their respective citizens.
While I understand, appreciate, and support the importance of the RTKL, in this case I am swayed by the fact that both the Senate and House of Representatives have offered legal argument in favor of the plain language of the RTKL. Thus, I leave it to the elected legislators to amend the statutory language should they so desire rather than have this Court interpret such language in opposition to their expressed intent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4969361. Public record. Not legal advice.