You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Bowfin KeyCon Hldgs. v. DEP

Citation: Not availableDocket: 82 MAP 2022

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; October 12, 2022; Pennsylvania; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued an order on October 12, 2022, quashing the Notice of Appeal in the case involving Bowfin Keycon Holdings, LLC and others against the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board. The court referenced the precedent set in *In re Barnes Foundation*, which allows for an appeal as of right from an order denying intervention under the collateral order doctrine, as outlined in *Geniviva v. Frisk*. The court emphasized that for a right to qualify for this doctrine, it must be significantly rooted in public policy beyond the specific case. Additionally, the Combined Application to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals and the Motion to Quash were dismissed as moot.

Legal Issues Addressed

Collateral Order Doctrine

Application: The court applied the collateral order doctrine to determine the appealability of an order denying intervention, emphasizing the need for the right involved to be rooted in public policy.

Reasoning: The court referenced the precedent set in In re Barnes Foundation, which allows for an appeal as of right from an order denying intervention under the collateral order doctrine, as outlined in Geniviva v. Frisk.

Mootness of Consolidate and Expedite Appeals

Application: The court dismissed the Combined Application to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals and the Motion to Quash as moot, indicating no further action was necessary.

Reasoning: Additionally, the Combined Application to Consolidate and Expedite Appeals and the Motion to Quash were dismissed as moot.

Public Policy Requirement for Collateral Order Doctrine

Application: In applying the collateral order doctrine, the court stressed that the right must be significantly rooted in public policy beyond the specific case to qualify.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that for a right to qualify for this doctrine, it must be significantly rooted in public policy beyond the specific case.