Legal Opinion · Dissent

Feldman v. Ide

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 9, 2007Published

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

  1. Ben v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Cooper v. SchoffstallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. McManus v. Chubb Group of InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Joyce & Associates v. PivirottoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Robec, Inc. v. PoulSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API