Court Opinion

ID: 9749446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:43:42.836805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:48.835516
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring.
*213I concur in the result. I write separately to state my disagreement with the majority’s dictum that an order staying an action in another county is not immediately appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4). Such an order has the effect of enjoining a party from proceeding with an action pending in another county and is immediately appeal-able as an injunction order. To hold otherwise is to leave the enjoined party with no means of correcting an erroneous stay order and prevents him or her from pursuing a proper action. In this respect, it is vastly different than an order which refuses to grant a stay of an action pending in another county, where a party can, in any event, assert his or her contentions in the pending action. Thus, even if Grimme Combustion, Inc. v. Mergentime Corp., 385 Pa.Super. 260, 560 A.2d 793 (1989), were correctly decided, it would not bar an immediate appeal from an order which, in fact, prevented a party from proceeding further with an action pending in another county.
However, because the majority holds the present order appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 311(c)—a decision with which I agree—and because I would hold that the trial court’s order was not an abuse of discretion, I concur in the decision to affirm.