Beltran v. Piersody
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentOlszewski, J.
¶ 1 The majority dismisses this appeal as interlocutory and thus inappropriate for review. While I agree that it is interlocutory, I would reach the merits. I therefore respectfully dissent.
¶ 2 While it is true that “[ojrdinarily, an order permitting intervention is interlocutory and not appealable,” M.N.C. Corp. v. Mount Lebanon Med. Ctr., 334 Pa.Super. 359, 483 A.2d 490, 492 (1984) rev’d on other grounds, 510 Pa. 490, 509 A.2d 1256 (1986); see also In Re Manley, 305 Pa.Super. 332, 451 A.2d 557, 559 n. 5 (1982), I would not strictly apply the rule in this particular case. I recognize the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Brinkley v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- J.A.L. v. E.P.H.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- J.A.L. v. E.P.H.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Fish v. BehersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.