The court in its §1925(a) opinion urged affirmance of its order denying appellant's unsupported emergency motion for injunction requesting removal of counsel for defendant Bunul and to enjoin that law firm from representing defendant Bunul because appellant had consulted but not retained an attorney in the same law firm before Bunul's counsel joined the firm.

Adversary proceeding asserting inverse condemnation claim failed where state government seized possession of facility necessary to prevent dangerous environmental contamination when owner ran out of funds to operate the facility.