Legal Opinion
Boden v. Tompkins
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 19, 1982No. 1688PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WIEAND, Judge:
In this appeal it is alleged that Pa.R.C.P. 218, the so-called “240 Day Rule”, 1 now vacated, was invalid because it consti tuted judicial legislation and was in conflict with Rule 1901 of the Rules of Judicial Administration. We are unable to consider these issues, however, because the appeal was not timely filed and must be quashed.
The order dismissing appellants’ action was entered on March 2, 1981. A Notice of Appeal was not filed until June 12, 1981, more than three months after the order had been entered. This was untimely. See: Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).
Appellants seek to avoid…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Provident National Bank v. RooklinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Alessandro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Giannini v. FoySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Bagshaw v. VickersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Praisner v. StockerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Allegheny County Housing Authority v. BerrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Thorn v. Newman Et Ux.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Liberty Bank v. RuderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Nalbone v. Borough of YoungsvilleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.