make such a declaration under Section 692. As this court has previously stated, the Declaration “had the effect of dissolving the SBOC and, thereby, ending its control of the Chester-Upland School District.” See Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, June 1, 2007. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the Commonwealth Court’s order dated April 16, 2007. Following the affirmance of the April 16th order, Appel lants are no longer an extant party and cannot have party status before this or any other court. Consistent with such reasoning, as of April 17th, the Empowerment Board was properly substituted for the SBOC and the SBOC’s appeal from the April 17th order must be quashed. See, e.g., Blackwell v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Comm’n, 523 Pa. 347, 567 A.2d 630 (1989) (<HOLDING>); G. Ronald Darlington, et al., Pennsylvania
holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding quashal is appropriate when entity was out of existence recognizing existence of two tests recognizing that moving to the second stage of the saucier analysis is appropriate when the existence of a constitutional violation depends upon the resolution of uncertain state law