Goldberg v. Goldberg

437 A.2d 64, 292 Pa. Super. 318, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3736
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 13, 1981
DocketNo. 56
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 437 A.2d 64 (Goldberg v. Goldberg) 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
Goldberg v. Goldberg, 437 A.2d 64, 292 Pa. Super. 318, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3736 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the order of the lower court dismissing appellant’s exceptions following a non jury trial. We are unable to reach the merits of the appeal, however, because the order dismissing appellant’s exceptions has not been reduced to judgment and docketed.

It is now well-settled that “orders dismissing exceptions following nonjury trials are interlocutory and nonappealable until judgment has been entered on the docket.” Murray v. Abcon, Inc., 291 Pa.Super. 428, 429, 435 A.2d 1301, 1302 (1981). See Pa.R.A.P. 301(c); Heffner v. Bock, 287 Pa.Super. 345, 430 A.2d 318 (1981); Penstan Supply Co. v. Hay, 283 Pa.Super. 558, 424 A.2d 950 (1981). Accordingly, because judgment has not been entered on the docket, we must quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed.

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

Related

Taggart v. Taggart
462 A.2d 798 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
437 A.2d 64, 292 Pa. Super. 318, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-goldberg-pasuperct-1981.