Driver v. Temple
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Fried v. FriedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Praisner v. StockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.