Court Opinion

ID: 9894213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 20:09:20.100464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:08.056913
License: Public Domain

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