Appeals from the Orders of the State Board of Education in cases of Edgewood School District v. State Board of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Churchill Area School District v. State Board of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Turtle Creek Area School District v. State Board of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Carl W. Brueck, Jr., for appellant, Edgewood School District.
J. Robert Maxwell, for appellant, Churchill Area School District.
James C. Evans, with him M. E. Evashwick, for appellant, Turtle Creek Area School District.
Burton D. Morris, Deputy Attorney General, with him Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judges Kramer and Wilkinson, Jr., did not participate. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 648]
Instant replay is a television technique that has become a common facet of presenting sports events to a suspenseful audience. Although it tends to establish certainty, it does not alter rulings made. Only an appeal or protest of those rulings can result in a different ruling.
Likewise, presenting the same issue twice to the same court will only produce a second ruling that coincides with the first. If a different result is sought, it will generally have to be by the appeal route and not by the replay approach.*fn1 We hasten to state that the above analogy is not intended as criticism of the appellants here but only as descriptive of their plight or dilemma.
In Edgewood School District v. State Board of Education, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 136, 330 A.2d
[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 649880]
(1975), we held that the reorganization plan of school desegregation submitted by the State Board of Education (State Board) to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (District Court), in compliance with that court's May 15, 1973 order, was not appealable since it was not an adjudication or final order and was merely a recommendation based upon a proceeding before a court.
Subsequent to our holding, the District Court rejected the plan which was the subject of our earlier decision and, by order of May 7, 1975, directed the State Board to submit a second reorganization plan to it. The State Board complied with this order and, on September 29, 1975, submitted a new plan to the District Court. The appellants here, as they did following the submission of the first plan, filed appeals to this Court asserting that the ...