Dresner v. Povlow

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Dresner v. Povlow

406 A.2d 350, 267 Pa. Super. 89, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2438

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 15, 1979

DocketNo. 1782

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 406 A.2d 350 (Dresner v. Povlow) 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

Dresner v. Povlow, 406 A.2d 350, 267 Pa. Super. 89, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2438 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On July 28, 1977, after testimony was taken in this equity action, the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, [90]*90by Chancellor Vincent A. Cirillo, entered an Adjudication and Decree Nisi. Both parties filed exceptions which were dismissed on April 28, 1978. From that dismissal, appellants filed this appeal,¹ alleging error in the April 28, 1978 action. Appellee contends that appellants’ exceptions were dismissed by the court en banc as being filed untimely. The order of the lower court contained no explanatory comments, and no opinion has been filed in support thereof.

We remand for compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Upon the return of this record, the matter shall be scheduled for argument and the parties shall file new briefs. Only by this remand can the issues be properly framed after consideration and explanation by the court below.

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

PER CURIAM:

On July 28, 1977, after testimony was taken in this equity action, the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, [90]*90by Chancellor Vincent A. Cirillo, entered an Adjudication and Decree Nisi. Both parties filed exceptions which were dismissed on April 28, 1978. From that dismissal, appellants filed this appeal,¹ alleging error in the April 28, 1978 action. Appellee contends that appellants’ exceptions were dismissed by the court en banc as being filed untimely. The order of the lower court contained no explanatory comments, and no opinion has been filed in support thereof.

We remand for compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Upon the return of this record, the matter shall be scheduled for argument and the parties shall file new briefs. Only by this remand can the issues be properly framed after consideration and explanation by the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 A.2d 350, 267 Pa. Super. 89, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dresner-v-povlow-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack