Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Objections of [the Department] are overruled and [the Department] is ordered to file answers to the Petitions.”). Faced with the Petitions and the demurrers thereto, the Safe Harbor I court had to determine whether or not the facts pleaded in the Petitions were legally sufficient to permit those actions to continue. See Firing v. Kephart, 466 Pa. 560, 353 A.2d 833, 835 (1976)(stating the role of the court in ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer). Contrary to Appellants’ assertions, the Safe Harbor I courts overruling of the Departments demurrer had no greater effect than to permit Appellants Petitions to go forward. The courts ruling in Safe Harbor I, therefore, was interlocutory and not final. See Rosenwald v. Barbieri, 501 Pa. 563, 462 A.2d 644, 646 (1983)(<HOLDING>). In this regard, Safe Harbor I is in direct 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired (B) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable (E) holding that an order dismissing preliminary objections is interlocutory but an order sustaining them is not
Output (English): holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable