Legal Opinion

Friedman v. Kasser

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 18, 1981No. 2823PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Because no final decree in equity was entered on the docket below we cannot reach the merits and, accordingly, quash this appeal. A lower court’s direction to enter a specified order, unaccompanied by actual entry of the specified order on the docket, is interlocutory and not appealable and must be reduced to judgment and docketed before an appeal can be taken. Pa.R.A.P. 301(c). See Coren v. DiDomenico, 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 435 A.2d 1252 (1981). The order appealed from merely states that the decree nisi “shall be entered on praecipe.” No final decree was ever entered. *296Consequently, we…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Murray v. Abcon, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Coren v. DiDomenicoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Mercadante v. RanieliSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Thomas v. ElashSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Nixon v. NixonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Friedman v. KasserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Taxin v. ShoemakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Carter, J. v. Consol Pennsylvania CoalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018

5 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