Blake v. Mayo Nursing & Convalescing Home, Inc.

369 A.2d 400, 245 Pa. Super. 274, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2178
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 22, 1976
Docket1619
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 369 A.2d 400 (Blake v. Mayo Nursing & Convalescing Home, Inc.) 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
Blake v. Mayo Nursing & Convalescing Home, Inc., 369 A.2d 400, 245 Pa. Super. 274, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2178 (Pa. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinions

PRICE, Judge:

This appeal must be quashed. Because the factual basis has no relevance to this disposition, we will not set it forth, except to note that an alleged contract of employment and alleged breach thereof gave rise to this action. Arbitration resulted in an award for appellant, which appellee, as was his right, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. In a non-jury trial held October 25, 1974 appellant did not appear, and a verdict was entered on that date for appellee in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Forty ($14,040) Dollars. On November 18, 1974 judgment was entered on this verdict.

Thereafter there were voluminous proceedings in the lower court commencing on November 21, 1974 with ap[276]*276pellant’s Petition to Open Judgment and/or Set Aside Verdict. The procedural history then becomes quite involved. This appeal was taken June 25, 1975 from the denial on June 17, 1975 of a Petition for Reconsideration.

Disposition of this case is quite clearly governed by the failure of appellant to file exceptions to the non-jury verdict of October 25, 1974. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1038 requires that exceptions be taken within twenty (20) days. Matters not covered by exceptions are waived. The proceedings in the lower court commencing on November 21, 1974 are completely meaningless and avail appellant no route to what is at best a collateral attack on the verdict of October 25, 1974 and the judgment entered thereon on November 18, 1974.

The appeal is quashed.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion in support of affirmance in which HOFFMAN, J., joins.

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

Related

Daniels v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
451 A.2d 684 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Innovation Printing & Lithography, Inc. v. Krain
449 A.2d 627 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
National Recovery Systems v. Nemchik
24 Pa. D. & C.3d 22 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1982)
Van Ameringen v. Arcadia Co., Inc.
445 A.2d 837 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Donson v. Satterthwaite
444 A.2d 141 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Red Oak Co. v. Kempton
445 A.2d 108 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
In Re Custody of Frank
423 A.2d 1229 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Yeager v. Long
425 A.2d 426 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees' Independent Union
417 A.2d 864 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Matczak v. Matczak
418 A.2d 663 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Kaiser v. Meinzer
414 A.2d 1080 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Gibson v. Miller
402 A.2d 1033 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Blake v. Mayo Nursing & Convalescing Home, Inc.
369 A.2d 400 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
369 A.2d 400, 245 Pa. Super. 274, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-mayo-nursing-convalescing-home-inc-pasuperct-1976.