Legal Opinion · Dissent

Driver v. Temple

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 23, 1988No. 452Published

1DissentKelly, Judge

I dissent. I would find that an order authorizing the opening of a private road is subject to appellate review only after the issue of damages has been resolved. Accordingly, I would quash the instant appeal as interlocutory.

Preliminarily, I note that in the interest of judicial economy, our courts have consistently adopted a policy of discouraging multiple appeals in a single case. “The fair and efficient administration of justice cannot tolerate ‘piecemeal *402determinations and the consequent protraction of litigation.’ ” Beers v. Raub, 363 Pa.Super. 521, 526 A.2d 801 (1987), citing Fried v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Fried v. FriedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Praisner v. StockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

6 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