# Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Roberts

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 24, 2003 · 576 Pa. 231

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649004

## Case

- **Full name:** UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC., T/D/B/A the Herald-Standard, a Corporation, and Paul Sunyak, an Individual, Appellants, v. Lawrence ROBERTS, in His Capacity as a Member of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 24, 2003
- **Citations:** 576 Pa. 231; 839 A.2d 185; 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2472
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cappy
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb
- **Cited by:** 45 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/9649004

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reasoning a legislator’s deci sion to selectively disclose phone records did not involve State action

## Opinion text

*254
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
Chief Justice CAPPY.
I join the majority insofar as it determines that there is no right of access to the records at issue here, and that Appellee’s actions are not protected under the immunity of the Speech or Debate Clause. I dissent from the majority’s decision to reinstate those claims which were raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , since I agree with Mr. Justice Lamb that no state action is implicated by Appellee’s acts. 1 Thus, I would affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.
Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.
. Contrary to the majority, I would find that this issue of whether Appellee was acting under color of law is properly before the court, since Appellee addressed the issue in his brief in support of his preliminary objections, and the Commonwealth Court evaluated the issue on the merits.
. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649004. Public record. Not legal advice.