Enock v. Reifer

437 A.2d 1245, 293 Pa. Super. 141, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3840
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 11, 1981
Docket314
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 437 A.2d 1245 (Enock v. Reifer) 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
Enock v. Reifer, 437 A.2d 1245, 293 Pa. Super. 141, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3840 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

SPAETH, Judge:

This action in trespass arises from an automobile accident. The trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remove the directed verdict. On March 19, 1980, after argument, the lower court entered an order stating that “plaintiff’s [sic] motion to remove the directed verdict is denied and the prothonotary is directed to enter judgment on the directed verdict for the defendants upon payment of the verdict fee.” The present appeal is from this order. The appeal must be quashed. The docket discloses that the prothonotary has not entered judgment. Rule 301 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in pertinent part:

(a) Entry upon docket below. No order shall be appeal-able until it has been entered upon the appropriate docket in the lower court.
(c) Orders not appealable. A direction by the lower court that a specified judgment, sentence or other order shall be entered, unaccompanied by actual entry of the specified order in the docket, or a direction that a verdict of a jury be recorded or entered, or an order denying a motion for a new trial, does not constitute an appealable order. Any such order shall be reduced to judgment and docketed before an appeal is taken.

Rule 301(d) provides that a decision may be reduced to judgment “on praecipe of any party,” Pa.R.A.P. 301(d), but here no praecipe was filed.

Quashed.

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

Related

Margolis v. Klinger
769 A.2d 545 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)
Ryan v. GAF Corp.
665 A.2d 843 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)
Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp.
657 A.2d 511 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
437 A.2d 1245, 293 Pa. Super. 141, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enock-v-reifer-pasuperct-1981.