Atene v. Lawrence

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Atene v. Lawrence

289 A.2d 178, 220 Pa. Super. 444, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1931

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 24, 1972

DocketAppeals, Nos. 1324 and 1354

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 289 A.2d 178 (Atene v. Lawrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atene v. Lawrence, 289 A.2d 178, 220 Pa. Super. 444, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1931 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Tn this trespass action involving an automobile collision the jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000.00. Motions for new trial and judgment n.o.v. were filed by defendant. After argument, defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. was withdrawn and the lower court made the following order: “July 2nd, 1971: Plaintiff is directed to file a remitti-tur of all sums in excess of $13,500.00 or Defendant’s motion for New Trial is granted.”

The plaintiff did not file a remittitur and both parties appealed from the order of July 2, 1971. However, this is not an appealable order and both appeals must be quashed. Clarkson v. Crawford, 285 Pa. 299, 132 A. 350 (1926).

No judgment has been entered nor has a new trial been granted. Nowhere on the record is there a state-[446]*446meat by plaintiff that he will not remit. Until such election is made, an appealable final order cannot be entered. If the plaintiff decides to remit, a judgment may be entered on the verdict as remitted and a judgment appealable by the defendant exists. If plaintiff refuses to remit, an order granting a new trial should be entered. Such an order is also appealable.

Both appeals are quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Tn this trespass action involving an automobile collision the jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $20,000.00. Motions for new trial and judgment n.o.v. were filed by defendant. After argument, defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. was withdrawn and the lower court made the following order: “July 2nd, 1971: Plaintiff is directed to file a remitti-tur of all sums in excess of $13,500.00 or Defendant’s motion for New Trial is granted.”

The plaintiff did not file a remittitur and both parties appealed from the order of July 2, 1971. However, this is not an appealable order and both appeals must be quashed. Clarkson v. Crawford, 285 Pa. 299, 132 A. 350 (1926).

No judgment has been entered nor has a new trial been granted. Nowhere on the record is there a state-[446]*446meat by plaintiff that he will not remit. Until such election is made, an appealable final order cannot be entered. If the plaintiff decides to remit, a judgment may be entered on the verdict as remitted and a judgment appealable by the defendant exists. If plaintiff refuses to remit, an order granting a new trial should be entered. Such an order is also appealable.

Both appeals are quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.2d 178, 220 Pa. Super. 444, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atene-v-lawrence-pasuperct-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack