Slaseman v. Myers

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Slaseman v. Myers

427 A.2d 165, 285 Pa. Super. 167, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2112

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 16, 1981

Docket256

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 427 A.2d 165 (Slaseman v. Myers) 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

Slaseman v. Myers, 427 A.2d 165, 285 Pa. Super. 167, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2112 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Following a non-jury trial in this wrongful death and survival action, the lower court rendered a decision awarding appellant-plaintiff damages of $139,408.28. Appellant filed exceptions from that decision in which she contended, inter alia, that the damages awarded were inadequate. The present appeal is from the order of the lower court en banc denying appellant’s exceptions. Here, as below, appellant challenges the adequacy of the damages awarded by the trial court. We are unable to reach the merits of this appeal, however, because judgment has not been entered in the case. Entry of judgment is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction. See 2 Goodrich-Amram 2d § 1038(b):1, at 501 (1976); cf. Lynch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 422 Pa. 488, 222 A.2d 925 (1966) (order dismissing post-verdict motions following jury trial is not *169 appealable). Consequently, this appeal is premature and must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Following a non-jury trial in this wrongful death and survival action, the lower court rendered a decision awarding appellant-plaintiff damages of $139,408.28. Appellant filed exceptions from that decision in which she contended, inter alia, that the damages awarded were inadequate. The present appeal is from the order of the lower court en banc denying appellant’s exceptions. Here, as below, appellant challenges the adequacy of the damages awarded by the trial court. We are unable to reach the merits of this appeal, however, because judgment has not been entered in the case. Entry of judgment is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction. See 2 Goodrich-Amram 2d § 1038(b):1, at 501 (1976); cf. Lynch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 422 Pa. 488, 222 A.2d 925 (1966) (order dismissing post-verdict motions following jury trial is not *169 appealable). Consequently, this appeal is premature and must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 A.2d 165, 285 Pa. Super. 167, 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slaseman-v-myers-pasuperct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack