Case Name: Deborah STOLTZ and Aloysius Stoltz, Petitioners, v. DATASCOPE CORPORATION, Waterloo Industries, Inc., Mastrin and Mastrin Architects, P.C., a/k/a Philip Mastrin A.I.A. Architect and Associates, P.C., Frank H. Wilson Company, and Williard, Inc., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1990-08-07
Citations: 525 Pa. 293
Docket Number: Appeal No. 1151 E.D. Allocatur Docket 1989
Parties: Deborah STOLTZ and Aloysius Stoltz, Petitioners, v. DATASCOPE CORPORATION, Waterloo Industries, Inc., Mastrin and Mastrin Architects, P.C., a/k/a Philip Mastrin A.I.A. Architect and Associates, P.C., Frank H. Wilson Company, and Williard, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 525
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
580 A.2d 294
Deborah STOLTZ and Aloysius Stoltz, Petitioners, v. DATASCOPE CORPORATION, Waterloo Industries, Inc., Mastrin and Mastrin Architects, P.C., a/k/a Philip Mastrin A.I.A. Architect and Associates, P.C., Frank H. Wilson Company, and Williard, Inc., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Aug. 7, 1990.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 1990, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted. The Order of the Superior Court quashing the appeal is vacated and the matter is remanded to that court for disposition of the appeal on the merits.
Application of Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1), as amended March 31, 1989, effective July 1, 1989, to this case is not "just and practicable," especially in view of the time and money expended by the petitioners in filing, briefing, and arguing their appeal before the effective date of the amended rule, indeed before the amended rule was even published.