Court Opinion

ID: 9634515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:15:43.956803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:52.047790
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt :
I must respectively dissent.
It seems to me that the majority should address the question of the standing of the petitioners to bring this action before addressing the merits of the demurrer, for we should first determine whether or not any one or more of the parties can qualify with a sufficient interest to assert the cause of action before we proceed further.
*160In addition, I believe that, because tbe dismissal of a case of this significance on a technicality is inadvisable, we should expressly grant the petitioners leave to amend their petition for review under Pa.R.C.P. No. 1033 so as to remedy, if possible, any problems with their standing to sue and then to include, if they so desire, the contention raised at length in their brief that legislative authorization is necessary before the hospital concerned here can be closed. See Flinn v. Pittenger, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 54, 338 A.2d 735 (1975); Pittsburgh Metal Lithographing Co. v. Sovereign Corp., 220 Pa. Superior Ct. 219, 283 A.2d 714 (1971).