Court Opinion

ID: 9704562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:40:05.615275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:03.428409
License: Public Domain

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This controversy has not yet reached the stage where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania should intervene. Hence, the Petition for Extraordinary Relief is denied.
The Application to Review the Order entered by Mr. Justice Larsen on April 11,1980, is granted and that Order is vacated.
*565ROBERTS, J., filed a statement.
LARSEN, J., filed a dissenting statement.
FLAHERTY, J., filed a dissenting statement.
ROBERTS, Justice.
It is with the understanding that the issues petitioners present to this Court will be entertained in the Commonwealth Court on the appeals pending there that I agree to this Court’s abstention from the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. See Price v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 422 Pa. 317, 221 A.2d 138 (1966); Crawford v. Redevelopment Authority, 418 Pa. 549, 211 A.2d 866 (1965).