Opinion
No. 288 MAL 2023
10-31-2023
KLEINBARD LLC, Petitioner v. 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
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court
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?