inclinations to deem protective cross-appeals impermissible” because “refusing to hear [them] will streamline cases on appeal and prevent prevailing parties from deluging the courts with unnecessary protective cross-appeals[,]” and noting such practice would “eliminatef ] the question of whether a non-aggrieved party filing a protective cross-appeal must raise every potential ap-pealable issue for fear of waiver”). While appellant cites a case in which this Court has found an issue waived due to a party’s failure to raise the same on cross-appeal, that case is distinguishable as it involved an issue on which the lower court’s holding was adverse to the appel-lee. See Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Association, 453 Pa. 124, 306 A.2d 881, 885 (1973) (<HOLDING>). In Alto-Reste, the Commission ordered
holding appellee precluded from challenging propriety of amended final order  issue decided adversely to it by commonwealth court  where failed to raise same in crossappeal holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review holding that courts are precluded from reconsidering issues that have already been decided in the same case holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal