![]() NORTHWEST BANK, f/k/a NORTHWEST SAVINGS BANK, PlaintiffĭONALD J. Osiecki and Mary Jude Osiecki, owners of property situate in the Township of Washington, Erie County, Pennsylvania being: 11201 Fry Road, Edinboro, Pennsylvania. OSIECKI and MARY JUDE OSIECKI, Defendantsīy virtue of an Amended Writ of Execution filed at No. NORTHWEST BANK f/k/a NORTHWEST SAVINGS BANK, Plaintiff If the money is not paid immediately after the property is struck off, it will be put up again and sold, and the purchaser held responsible for any loss, and in no case will a deed be delivered until money is paid. Granted in part, denied in part, and dismissed as moot in part.Notice is hereby given that by virtue of sundry Writs of Execution, issued out of the Courts of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania, and to me directed, the following described property will be sold at the Erie County Courthouse, Erie, Pennsylvania onĪll parties in interest and claimants are further notified that a schedule of distribution will be on file in the Sheriff’s Office no later than 30 days after the date of sale of any property sold hereunder, and distribution of the proceeds made 10 days after said filing, unless exceptions are filed with the Sheriff’s Office prior thereto.Īll bidders are notified prior to bidding that they MUST possess a cashier’s or certified check in the amount of their highest bid or have a letter from their lending institution guaranteeing that funds in the amount of the bid are immediately available. Although the City provided responsive records to the Requester in response to a prior RTKL request, such action did not relieve the City from providing those records in response to the instant Request. ![]() The City proved that part of the Request was not sufficiently specific under Section 703. 17-20075-04 do not exist within the possession, custody or control of the City. The City proved that related to Contract No. 17-20075-02 and 17-20075-03 contain exempt personal identification information and information protected by the state Constitutional right to privacy. The City proved that responsive records records related to Contract Nos. The City provided access to records related toĬontract Number 17-20075 and Contract Number 17-20075-01on appeal. ![]() The Request sought City DBHIDS' Mental Health Base Unitary Contract and related documents. City of Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disability Services Granted in part, denied in part, dismissed as moot in part.Ĭarmencita Maria Pedro v. Agency proved that a record consists of correspondence between a person and a member of the General Assembly. Agency did not records are exempt social services records. Agency proved that some records are exempt procurement materials. Agency proved that some records reflect internal, predecisional deliberations. Agency proved that records contain personal identification information. Agency did not prove records are exempt medical records. Agency proved that some records are protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine. A portion of the Request was sufficiently specific under Section 703. Agency proved that certain records do not exist within the possession, custody or control of the agency. Request sought records related to an agency request for applications. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Pennsylvania Health and Wellness Pennsylvania Health and Wellness and Pennsyvania Health and Wellness v. Granted in part, denied in part and dismissed as moot in part. The agency proved that certain records responsive to Item 7 of the Request reflect internal predecisionial deliberations. To the extent that the information responsive to Item 3 of the Request is not part of a performance review, the agency must provide that record to the Requester. Certain portions of the appeal were withdrawn. The redacted records provided to the Requester during the appeal in response to Item 7 of the Request contained exempt personal identification information. During the appeal, the agency provided records responsive to Items 8, 13, and part of Item 7. ![]() The agency proved that records responsive to Items 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and part of Item 3, do not exist within the agency's possession custody or control. Request sought information pertaining to certain employees, as well as information related to the hiring process for an agency job position.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |