# Commonwealth v. Sartin

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · February 26, 1998 · 708 A.2d 121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707582

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William SARTIN. Appeal of the SCRANTON TIMES, Sunday Times and Scranton Tribune
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 26, 1998
- **Citations:** 708 A.2d 121; 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1827; 1998 Pa. Super. LEXIS 137
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Elliott
- **Judges:** Elliott, Johnson, Elliot, Montemuro
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707582

## Opinion text

FORD ELLIOTT,
Judge, dissenting:
Because I would find that the order appealed from is a collateral order, I would reach the merits of this appeal. See R.W. v. Hampe, 426 Pa.Super. 306 , 626 A.2d 1218, 1219 (1993) (holding that an order partially sealing the record to preclude plaintiff’s name from being used in the caption was appealable as a collateral order). It is hard to imagine an order more separable from and collateral to the main cause of action than the one before us, which has so little relationship to the underlying criminal trial that Sartin’s counsel did not address it. Likewise, the claimed right of public access is too important to be denied review. Finally, the press, which seeks to publish news, will be irreparably harmed if review of this order awaits disposition of the unrelated underlying criminal trial. Additionally, it is inconceivable that if Sartin is convicted, the press will have standing to appeal from his judgment of sentence and request a new trial based on this order. Furthermore, if Sartin is not convicted, there can be no appeal at all. As a result, I would find that the order at issue in this case is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 705 A.2d at 832 n. 2. See also In Re Estate of Petro, 694 A.2d 627, 636 (Pa.Super.1997) (Ford Elliott, J. dissenting) (two necessary corollaries to the collateral order doctrine are that “ ‘(1) the lower court’s determination on the collateral matter must be final and (2) deferred appellate review of the lower court’s determination would be either ineffective or impossible.’ ”), quoting Zigmont Pines, Pennsylvania Appellate Practice: Procedural Requirements and the Vagaries of Jurisdiction (Part 1), 91 Dick.L.Rev. 55, 109-110 (1986).
As a result, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707582. Public record. Not legal advice.