# Kleinbard, LLC v. Lanc. Co. DA

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 31, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9894213

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 31, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 0 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/9894213

## Opinion text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT

KLEINBARD LLC, : No. 288 MAL 2023
:
Petitioner :
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal
: from the Order of the
v. : Commonwealth Court
:
:
THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT :
ATTORNEY OF LANCASTER COUNTY; :
HEATHER ADAMS, IN HER OFFICIAL :
CAPACITY AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF :
LANCASTER COUNTY; LANCASTER :
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; :
JOSHUA PARSONS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL :
CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :
CHAIRMAN OF THE LANCASTER :
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; :
RAY D'AGOSTINO, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL :
CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :
VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE LANCASTER :
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; :
CRAIG LEHMAN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL :
CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :
LANCASTER COUNTY COMMISSIONER; :
BRIAN HURTER, IN HIS OFFICIAL :
CAPACITY AS LANCASTER COUNTY :
CONTROLLER; AND CHRISTINA :
HAUSNER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL :
CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :
FORMER LANCASTER COUNTY :
SOLICITOR, :
:
Respondents :

ORDER

PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Did the lower courts err when they applied 16 P.S. §1773 of the County Code to
District Attorney-controlled accounts because the monies in those accounts are
not appropriated from the County Treasury, and thus are not subject to the County
Commissioners’ discretion?

(2) Did the lower courts misconstrue Yost v McKnight, 865 A.2d 979 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2005), and related case law given that the District Attorney sought to draw monies
from District Attorney-controlled accounts and therefore did not ask the County
Commissioners for additional monies from the County Treasury?

(3) Did the lower courts’ holdings violate separation of powers principles by allowing
the county Commissioners to interfere with the District Attorney’s right to spend
monies within his budget in order to defend against the Commissioners’ illegal
encroachment on his constitutional role in County government?

[288 MAL 2023] - 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9894213. Public record. Not legal advice.