IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Seda-Cog Joint Rail Authority : : v. : No. 617 C.D. 2017 : Carload Express, Inc., Susquehanna : Union Railroad Company, and Northern : Plains Railroad, Inc. : : Appeal of: Carload Express, Inc. : PER CURIAM ORDER NOW, June 28, 2018, upon the Application for Reargument of Susquehanna Union Railroad Company, and responses thereto, the Application is hereby GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part, as follows: It appearing that the parties disagree whether the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County (trial court) from which appeal was taken was a final, appealable order, supporting an appeal by notice of appeal (as filed by Carload Express, Inc. in this Court), or whether the trial court order did not resolve all issues between all parties and was therefore an interlocutory order; and It further appearing that such disagreement was submitted to a single judge of this Court, who by Opinion and Order dated September 27, 2017 (Cosgrove, J.), declined to resolve the legal disagreement, but simply allowed the current appeal by right to continue; and It further appearing that thereafter, during the appeal to this Court and unknown to this Court, the parties conducted a deposition, during which new factual issues arose; and It further appearing that the new factual issues arising during continued litigation at the trial court level may impact ultimate resolution of the claims between the parties, as a result of which Susquehanna Union Railroad Company requests clarification of our Opinion and Order of May 3, 2018, specifying that on remand the trial court “is not to award or make any ruling with regard to the Operating Agreement until Susquehanna Union Railroad Company’s Counterclaim is considered and adjudicated”; Accordingly, consistent with Pa.R.A.P. 2546(b) (court authorized to “take such other action as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances”), we declare: a) that the request for clarification is GRANTED in part as follows, but all other requests are DENIED; b) that our Opinion and Order of May 3, 2018, was intended to resolve the discrete legal issue of the applicable voting standard, which was the only issue clearly submitted to this Court on appeal; c) that the Opinion and Order of May 3, 2018, constitutes the law of the case with regard to the voting standard issue; and d) that at this time the Court expresses no view on the propriety of actions at the trial court level during the pendency of this appeal. Remand is confirmed. Jurisdiction is relinquished.