Geniviva v. Frisk
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentNewman, Justice
Because I believe that the trial court’s order, which denied Appellant’s motion to approve a settlement, is a collateral order appealable as of right pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 313, I must respectfully dissent.
On March 6, 1997, the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County denied approval of the parties’ revised settlement agreement. On March 31, 1997, the Superior Court quashed the appeal of that order as interlocutory. We granted allocatur to determine whether the Superior Court erred in quashing as interlocutory the appeal from the order of the trial court rejecting a settlement between the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- In Re Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Teodore Dorotee Autera v. Manuel Dudley Robinson, Anthony C. Autera v. Manuel Dudley RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
- Rothman v. FilletteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Van Der Laan v. Nazareth HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.