Opinion

Hain v. Board of School Directors of Reading School District

  • 163 Pa. Commw. 479
  • 641 A.2d 661
  • 1994 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 194
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Apr 19, 1994
Status
Published
Author
Doyle
On the bench
Craig, Doyle, Colins, McGinley, Smith, Pellegrini, Kelley
Cited by
4 cases

holding that the Sunshine Act requires Pennsylvania government agencies to permit videotaping of their meetings

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the Sunshine Act requires Pennsylvania government agencies to permit videotaping of their meetings
  • appeal filed more than thirty days after vote of School Board to ban videotaping of Board meeting untimely under Sunshine Act when complainant witnessed vote at issue

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DOYLE, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s order based on the well reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas J. Eshelman of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County.

SMITH, J., joins in this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.