Judges: Colins, Jubelirer, Leavitt, McCullough, Simpson
Filed Date: 6/16/2014
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/26/2024
CONCURRING & DISSENTING
OPINION BY
I concur with the scholarly opinion of the majority, except for its insertion of the identities of the clients contained in the billing statements relating to the Commonwealth grand jury representation.
I believe that the identities of the witnesses called to the Commonwealth grand jury proceedings should be redacted from the itemized billing records.
DEP v. B&R Resources, LLC & R.F. Campola ( 2021 )
Estate of Paterno v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n ( 2017 )
J.R. v. DHS T.H. v. DHS ( 2017 )
Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, M., Aplt. ( 2016 )
B. Wishnefsky v. PA Department of Corrections ( 2016 )
RB Alden Corp. v. Com. of PA ( 2019 )
Smith Ex Rel. Smith Butz, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of ... ( 2017 )
Real Alternatives v. DHS & Equity Forward (OOR) ( 2022 )
Pennsylvanians for Union Reform v. Pennsylvania Office of ... ( 2015 )
Madison v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole ( 2019 )
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. v. PA DOC & v. Maulsby ( 2021 )
PA Dept. of Revenue v. A. Wagaman & The Morning Call ( 2021 )
Appeal of: I. Campbell & J. Campbell from the Decision ... ( 2021 )