Marshall v. Powers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Marshall v. Powers

383 A.2d 946, 477 Pa. 306, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 895

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 23, 1978

Docket125

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 383 A.2d 946 (Marshall v. Powers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marshall v. Powers, 383 A.2d 946, 477 Pa. 306, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 895 (Pa. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia granted a motion by the plaintiff-appellees to strike new matter filed by the defendant-appellant which raised as a defense a release which allegedly discharged defendant-appellant from liability. The motion to strike alleged the [308]*308release was obtained in violation of the Act of June 9, 1972, P.L. 359, No. 97, § 1, 12 P.S. § 1630 (Supp.1977-78). The defendant-appellant appealed from the order granting the motion to strike to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed per curiam. The defendant-appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal and we granted the petition.

The order of the Court of Common Pleas is interlocutory, see Adcox v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass’n Cas. Ins. Co., 419 Pa. 170, 213 A.2d 366 (1965), and hence, the Superior Court erred in entertaining an appeal therefrom in the absence of a certification pursuant to Section 501(b) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, § 501(b), 17 P.S. 211.501(b) (Supp.1977-78).

Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is vacated and the record is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas with a procedendo.

We express no view on the merits of the issue which resulted in the Court of Common Pleas order granting the motion to strike.

LARSEN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which MANDERINO, J., joins.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia granted a motion by the plaintiff-appellees to strike new matter filed by the defendant-appellant which raised as a defense a release which allegedly discharged defendant-appellant from liability. The motion to strike alleged the [308]*308release was obtained in violation of the Act of June 9, 1972, P.L. 359, No. 97, § 1, 12 P.S. § 1630 (Supp.1977-78). The defendant-appellant appealed from the order granting the motion to strike to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed per curiam. The defendant-appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal and we granted the petition.

The order of the Court of Common Pleas is interlocutory, see Adcox v. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Ass’n Cas. Ins. Co., 419 Pa. 170, 213 A.2d 366 (1965), and hence, the Superior Court erred in entertaining an appeal therefrom in the absence of a certification pursuant to Section 501(b) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, § 501(b), 17 P.S. 211.501(b) (Supp.1977-78).

Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court is vacated and the record is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas with a procedendo.

We express no view on the merits of the issue which resulted in the Court of Common Pleas order granting the motion to strike.

LARSEN, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which MANDERINO, J., joins.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 A.2d 946, 477 Pa. 306, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-powers-pa-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack