NO. 8 W.D. APPEAL DOCKET, 1985, No. 12 W.D. MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET, 1985, Consolidated Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dated January 30, 1985, entered at No. 8 of 1984 Administrative Docket.
Robert J. Stefanko, Sol., Bd. of Public Educ. of The School District of Pgh., Pittsburgh, for appellant at No. 8.
Robert J. Stefanko, Sol., David H. Dille, Asst. Sol., The Bd. of Public Educ. of The School Dist. of Pgh., Pittsburgh, for petitioners at No. 12.
David A. Brownlee, Pittsburgh, for David E. Engel.
Allan J. Opsitnick, Asst. County Sol., Pittsburgh, Leroy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen. of Pa., Harrisburg, Theodore A. Van Wormer, Ph.D., Pittsburgh, for appellee at No. 8.
Allan J. Opsitnick, Asst. County Sol., Leroy S. Zimmerman, Atty. Gen. of Pa., for respondents at No. 12.
Nix, C.j., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala and Papadakos, JJ.
The instant matter is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered on January 30, 1985. That order directed the reapportionment of school director districts for the Pittsburgh Board of Public Education in accordance with section 302.1(c) of the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, No. 14, § 302.1(c), as amended, 24 P.S. § 3-302.1(c) (Supp.1984-85). On February 6, 1985, the School District filed an appeal to this Court from the January 30, 1985 order and on February 6, 1985 the School District also filed an application for accelerated disposition of its appeal. On the same day the Board of Public Education, its incumbent directors and certain residents of the School District filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County naming the Allegheny County Board of Elections and its director as defendants. That complaint also sought a declaration that the reapportionment plan was not in conformity with the Public School Code; requested an injunction restraining the named defendants from implementing the reapportionment plan; and requested a direction that the current school director districts remain intact until a new reapportionment plan was adopted. Thereupon, the plaintiffs in the equity action made application to this Court on February 8, 1985 requesting that we assume extraordinary jurisdiction in the equity action and consolidate that matter with the pending appeal filed from the January 30, 1985 order.
On February 9, 1985 the Chief Justice granted the application for expedited disposition of the appeal and directed that it be listed for the March 1985 argument session. On
that same date a further order was entered by the Chief Justice granting an application for assumption of jurisdiction of the equity matter and consolidating that matter with the appeal from the January 30, 1985 order. On Monday, March 4, 1985 the ...