Friedman v. Kasser

438 A.2d 1001, 293 Pa. Super. 294, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3918
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 18, 1981·No. 2823·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Because no final decree in equity was entered on the docket below we cannot reach the merits and, accordingly, quash this appeal. A lower court’s direction to enter a specified order, unaccompanied by actual entry of the specified order on the docket, is interlocutory and not appealable and must be reduced to judgment and docketed before an appeal can be taken. Pa.R.A.P. 301(c). See Coren v. DiDomenico, 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 435 A.2d 1252 (1981). The order appealed from merely states that the decree nisi “shall be entered on praecipe.” No final decree was ever entered. [296] Consequently, we must quash this appeal. Murray v. Abcon, Inc., 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 428, 435 A.2d 1301 (1981); Mercadante v. Ranieli, 271 Pa. Superior Ct. 565, 414 A.2d 397 (1979).

Appeal quashed.

MONTEMURO, J., files a dissenting opinion.

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

Friedman v. Kasser, 438 A.2d 1001, 293 Pa. Super. 294, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3918 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

438 A.2d 1001 (Friedman v. Kasser) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sechrist Construction, Inc. v. Harpster, R.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
Carter, J. v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018
Taxin v. Shoemaker
799 A.2d 859 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Thomas v. Elash
781 A.2d 170 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)
Friedman v. Kasser
481 A.2d 886 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Nixon v. Nixon
458 A.2d 976 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Friedman v. Kasser
438 A.2d 1001 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)