Jimmy's Germantown Place, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Jimmy's Germantown Place, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia

874 A.2d 1157, 583 Pa. 59, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1121

DecidedMay 25, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 874 A.2d 1157 (Jimmy's Germantown Place, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimmy's Germantown Place, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 874 A.2d 1157, 583 Pa. 59, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1121 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of May 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is [1158]*1158GRANTED. The parties settled this matter, and respondent withdrew its appeal sixteen months before the Commonwealth Court issued its order and opinion. Absent compelling cause, a court will not exercise jurisdiction over moot controversies. In Re Gross, 476 Pa. 203, 382 A.2d 116 (1978). This case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine. The exercise of jurisdiction over this moot appeal can be traced to an error in docketing the notice of withdrawal. This procedural error is best corrected by exercising our supervisory authority pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 502. Accordingly, in recognition of the docketing error and the fact that the parties had withdrawn the appeal upon settlement of the controversy prior to issuance of the order and opinion of the Commonwealth Court, the order and published opinion of the Commonwealth Court are hereby VACATED. See Shafer v. Cascio, 288 Pa. 56, 135 A. 639 (1927) (the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall exercise general supervisory power over the regularity and legality of proceedings in the inferior tribunals).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 25th day of May 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is [1158]*1158GRANTED. The parties settled this matter, and respondent withdrew its appeal sixteen months before the Commonwealth Court issued its order and opinion. Absent compelling cause, a court will not exercise jurisdiction over moot controversies. In Re Gross, 476 Pa. 203, 382 A.2d 116 (1978). This case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine. The exercise of jurisdiction over this moot appeal can be traced to an error in docketing the notice of withdrawal. This procedural error is best corrected by exercising our supervisory authority pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 502. Accordingly, in recognition of the docketing error and the fact that the parties had withdrawn the appeal upon settlement of the controversy prior to issuance of the order and opinion of the Commonwealth Court, the order and published opinion of the Commonwealth Court are hereby VACATED. See Shafer v. Cascio, 288 Pa. 56, 135 A. 639 (1927) (the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall exercise general supervisory power over the regularity and legality of proceedings in the inferior tribunals).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 A.2d 1157, 583 Pa. 59, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmys-germantown-place-inc-v-city-of-philadelphia-pa-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack