Uniontown Newspapers, Inc., et al, Aplts v. Lawrence Roberts, et al (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-74-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC., T/D/B/A THE HERALD-STANDARD, A CORPORATION, AND PAUL SUNYAK, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellants v. LAWRENCE ROBERTS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 75 MAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered May 31, 2001 at No. 406 MD 2000 777 A.2d 1225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) ARGUED: May 15, 2003 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY Decided: December 24, 2003 I join the majority insofar as it determines that there is no right of access to the records at issue here, and that Appellee s actions are not protected under the immunity of the Speech or Debate Clause. I dissent from the majority s decision to reinstate those claims which were raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, since I agree with Mr. Justice Lamb that no state action is implicated by Appellee s acts.1 Thus, I would affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court. 1 Contrary to the majority, I would find that this issue of whether Appellee was acting under color of law is properly before the court, since Appellee addressed the issue in his brief in support of his preliminary objections, and the Commonwealth Court evaluated the issue on the merits. Mr. Justice Castille joins this concurring and dissenting opinion. [DOUBLE CLICK TO MODIFY FOOTER. Select text within brackets. Type journal #, district, & year] - 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.