HUTCHISON v. LUDDY, 533 Pa. 73 (1993)

619 A.2d 276

Samuel C. HUTCHISON v. Father Francis LUDDY, Bishop James Hogan, Monsignor Thomas Madden, Monsignor Roy F. Kline, Monsignor Paul Panza, Monsignor Ignatius Wadas, Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Cardinal John Krol and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Appeal of PITTSBURGH PRESS COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.Argued September 26, 1991.
Decided February 2, 1993.

Appeal No. 76 W.D. Appeal Docket 1991, from the Order of the Superior Court entered on August 27, 1990, 398 Pa. Super. 505, 581 A.2d 578 (1990), at No. 339 Pittsburgh 1989, affirming

Page 74

in part and reversing in part the Order dated December 23, 1988, in the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, Somerset County, at No. 445 of 1988.

Scott E. Henderson, Kevin C. Abbott, Thorp, Reed Armstrong, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Carl A. Eck, Maria Zulick, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek Eck, Pittsburgh, for Bishop James Hogan, Monsignor Thomas Madden, Monsignor Roy F. Kline, Monsignor Paul Panza, Monsignor Ignatius Wadas, Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, and St. Mary’s Catholic Church.

Richard M. Serbin, Joseph Nypaver, Levin, Reese Serbin, Altoona, for Samuel C. Hutchison.

John P. O’Dea, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens Young, Philadelphia, for Cardinal John Krol and Arch-Diocese of Philadelphia.

L. Edward Glass, Johnstown, for Father Francis Luddy.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ., concurring.

ORDER
PER CURIAM:

This appeal is dismissed as moot.

McDERMOTT, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

NIX, C.J., files a concurring statement.

NIX, Chief Justice, concurring.

I join the Per Curiam Order dismissing the appeal as moot. My initial inclination in this case was to vacate the Superior Court’s order and remand the matter to the Court of Common Pleas for an initial determination of the Appellant’s right to intervene. However, because the case has been discontinued

Page 75

in the Court of Common Pleas, there is no controversy in which that court could issue a ruling. Therefore, it is moot.