over the matter in order to resolve it in advance of the November 8, 2016 general election.”). This Court granted Appellants’ emergency application on July 27, 2016, and an expedited briefing schedule was established. As there were no factual disputes, the parties filed applications for summary relief. On September 2, 2016, this Court entered a unanimous per curiam order, stating that, because the Court was evenly divided as to which parties were entitled to summary relief, we lacked authority to grant, the requested relief and, thus, maintained “the status quo of the matter prior to the filing of the lawsuit.” Sprague v. Cortés, No. 75 MAP 2016, 145 A.3d 1136, per curiam order dated Sep. 2, 2016 (citing Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 443 Pa. 484, 281 A.2d 57 (1971) (<HOLDING>)). This author filed an opinion in support of
holding that the amount of a commission to be awarded to the personal representative requires the exercise of judicial discretion and judgment by the clerk who has original jurisdiction in the matter holding that where this court was evenly divided in an original jurisdiction matter challenging gubernatorial appointments to judicial vacancies the appropriate disposition was to enter a per curiam order noting that the requested relief could not be granted thereby maintaining the status quo of the matter holding that it was error for a district court to enter   judgment as a matter of law solely on the basis of inconsistent verdicts holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest