Case ID: pa-super_238/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shapiro Appeal.
    Argued September 12, 1975.
    Before Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ.
    
      
      Nicholas J. Nastasi, with him Arthur B. Shuman, Jr., for appellant.
    
      Nancy J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, with her Walter M. Phillips, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
    February 18, 1976:
   Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from a lower court Order denying the appellant’s motion to quash subpoenas; although interlocutory, special allowance for appeal was granted by this Court in this case and in Carabello Appeal, January, 1974 Special Investigating Grand Jury, 238 Pa. Superior Ct. 479, A.2d (1976). Unlike Carabello, Id., the lower court issued no certification in the instant case, but review was initially granted here because the appellant, inter alia, raised the identical question on which we deemed review appropriate in Carabello, Id. While our decision in Carabello, issued of a date simultaneously herewith, is dispositive of the controlling issue presented in this case, the lack of a lower court certification on this appeal [See Section 501 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P. L. 673, No. 223, Art. V, §501, 17 P.S. §211.501] compels us, for reasons of procedural consistency, to reconsider our decision granting review, and to decline a review of the merits of this appeal. See: Tracey Service Co. Appeals, January, 1974 Special Investigating Grand Jury, (Van der Voort, J., not participating), 238 Pa. Superior Ct. 476, A.2d (1976).