Court Opinion

ID: 9732346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:16:49.994012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:14.902551
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
If appellants’ motion for summary judgment had been denied because Commonwealth Court had found that material facts were in dispute, I would agree with the majority. *590Neither party, however, alleged that material facts were in issue,1 and Commonwealth Court determined that there was no genuine issue of fact to be resolved. The moving parties were not conceding “the converse facts.” Maj. op. at 587-588. The moving parties were declaring that there were no converse facts in the case. When Commonwealth Court resolved the legal issue in the case against the moving parties, appellants herein, there was nothing left for the court to adjudicate. As noted by the Honorable John A. MacPhail, the interests of judicial economy are served in this instance by entering judgment in favor of appellees, the non-moving parties.
By finding, sua sponte, that there may be facts in dispute, the majority ensures that litigation in this matter will continue indefinitely. I would hold, therefore, that summary judgment may be entered in favor of a non-moving party where there is no genuine issue of fact to be resolved and the moving party cannot, as a matter of law, prevail.
Accordingly, I would affirm the order of Commonwealth Court, entering judgment in favor of appellees.

. Appellants’ brief in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment states, in relevant part:
Plaintiffs', by the Motion for Summary Judgment, seek to obtain a decision or determination on the statutory provisions involved. The summary judgment, if denied would essentially leave Plaintiffs out of Court.

. See, DeFazio v. Labe, et al, 518 Pa. 390, 543 A.2d 540 (1988).