Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, in case of Brink's Incorporated v. Herman Sheppard Detective System, Inc. No. C-79071263 of 1979.
Marc B. Kaplin, with him, Howard Gersham, Lesser & Kaplin, P.C., for petitioner.
Kenneth E. Nicely, Assistant Counsel, with him, John G. Alford, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Herbert R. Nurick, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for Brink's Incorporated, intervenor.
[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 132]
Petitioner, Herman Sheppard Detective System, Inc. (Sheppard) has filed a petition for review from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) entered July 31, 1980 which denied Sheppard's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a complaint filed against it by Brink's, Inc. (Brink's). We sua sponte quash Sheppard's petition for review because it is taken from an order that is interlocutory and not otherwise appealable.
Under prior practice, a Commission order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was considered to be interlocutory and unappealable, Reed v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 174 Pa. Superior Ct., 132,
[ 97 Pa. Commw. Page 133100]
A.2d 399 (1953), notwithstanding the appealability of such orders entered at law or in equity under the Act of March 5, 1925, P.L. 23, formerly, 12 P.S. § 672, (Act of 1925) repealed by the Judiciary Act Repealer Act, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, 42 P.S. § 20002(a) .
Current practice provides that an interlocutory order is unappealable unless specifically made appealable by law or rule, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5105(c); Pa. R.A.P. 311, or by permission, 42 Pa. C.S. § 702(b); Pa. R.A.P. 1301-1323. The order from which petitioner appeals is not appealable by ...