arguing that rationale for not allowing immediate collateral appeal from contempt order should not apply “where the subjects of subpoena, who have been threatened with incarceration, are public employees of a public agency arguably just trying to do their jobs”
How later courts described this case
- arguing that rationale for not allowing immediate collateral appeal from contempt order should not apply “where the subjects of subpoena, who have been threatened with incarceration, are public employees of a public agency arguably just trying to do their jobs”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2011, it is hereby ordered that the Petition for Review is denied.
The Application to File Under Seal is granted. The Motion to Strike Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s Reply Brief or in the Alternative Permit OAG to File Sur-Reply Brief is denied.
Chief Justice CASTILLE files a Dissenting Statement.
Justice EAKIN Files a Dissenting Statement which is joined by Justice McCAFFERY.