Feldman v. Ide
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY
MUSMANNO, J.:
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent from the Opinion of my learned colleague. The majority holds that the Order on appeal in this case *1213is subject to review under the collateral order doctrine. I disagree.
¶ 2 Generally, discovery orders are considered interlocutory and unappealable. See Makarov v. Lukenda, 856 A.2d 163, 163 (Pa.Super.2004); Robec, Inc. v. Poul, 452 Pa.Super. 264, 681 A.2d 809, 811 (1996); Joyce & Associates v. Pivirotto, 358 Pa.Super. 50, 516 A.2d 763, 764 (1986); McManus v. Chubb Group of Ins. Companies, 342 Pa.Super. 405, 493 A.2d 84, 87 (1985).…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ben v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Cooper v. SchoffstallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- McManus v. Chubb Group of InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Joyce & Associates v. PivirottoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Robec, Inc. v. PoulSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.