Harristown Development Corporation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.

---

Harristown Development Corporation vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Number: 614 A.2d 1128, 532 Pa. 45 Year: 1992 State: Pennsylvania Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Other lawsuits in Pennsylvania Other lawsuits in 1992 Precedents include:

Sunshine Laws

How to Make Records Requests

Sunshine Litigation

Sorted by State, Year and Topic

Sunshine Nuances

Deliberative Process Exemption

Harristown Development Corporation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1992 concerning the applicability of open records laws to private nonprofit corporations.

Important precedents

This case held that a law to include nonprofits within the scope of the public records law was per se unconstitutional based on claims of due process and contract limitations.

Background

• In 1998, the Governor of PA signed into law Act 153, which brought all private organizations who lease large amounts of property, in excess of $1.5 million worth, under the umbrella of the old Sunshine Act.
• The Harristown Development Corporation is a private nonprofit who is involved in the development and growth of Harrisburg's business district, including managing shopping areas and acquiring and selling real estate on behalf of the city. They also lease large amounts of land to the city, from which they receive annual revenue between $13 and $19 million.
• On January 5, 1989 Harristown filed suit against the Attorney General, the senator who introduced the bill and the Commonwealth in an attempt to have ti declared that act 153 did not apply to itself or that act 153 was unconstitutional.
• The trial court ruled in favor of Harristown, declaring the act unconstitutional.
• The decision was appealed.

Ruling of the court

The trial court ruled in favor of Harristown, determining that the new act was unconstitutional. The court determined that the act was unconstitutional as a special law and as a potential impairment to contracts with state and local governments.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the trial court, ordering that Harristown was an agency under the law and had to comply with the Sunshine and Open Records Laws. The court rejected the trial courts contention that because Harristown was not within the original definition of agency, it did not fall under the law. The court felt that adopting this line of thinking would infringe upon the rights of the legislature to make and change laws, as is their job. The court next rejected the notion that the act was unconstitutional as a special law because it targeted Harristown, the only nonprofit in the state which leased property for profit in excess of $1.5 million. The court instead determined that the state had a vested interest in monitoring the business practices of Harristown, as it was at their mercy, so to speak, with regard to much of the property in its use. The court rejected Harristown's notion that its contracts with the state would be impaired, arguing that they had not experienced any impairment up until now. The court rejected Harristown's claim that the act is overridden by other nonprofit law, instead adopting the stance that the Sunshine law takes precedence of nonprofit law. Further, because this is a new law, Harristown has no claim to a violation of due process. Based on these facts, the court overturned the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of the state.

External links

• Ruling of the Court