Case Name: Ihor MALANCHUK, Petitioner v. Ilya SIVCHUK, etc., Respondent; Ihor Malanchuk, Petitioner v. Alex Tsimura, etc. and Tatyana Tsimura, etc., Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2015-05-27
Citations: 115 A.3d 310
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ihor MALANCHUK, Petitioner v. Ilya SIVCHUK, etc., Respondent. Ihor Malanchuk, Petitioner v. Alex Tsimura, etc. and Tatyana Tsimura, etc., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 115
Pages: 310–310

Head Matter:
Ihor MALANCHUK, Petitioner v. Ilya SIVCHUK, etc., Respondent. Ihor Malanchuk, Petitioner v. Alex Tsimura, etc. and Tatyana Tsimura, etc., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 27, 2015.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Did the Superior Court, en banc, err in quashing, as interlocutory, an appeal from an order granting summary judgment as to all claims and all defendants in one of two separate actions, consolidated under Pa.R.C.P. 213(a), where there was not a complete consolidation and merger of the actions?