Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sutliff v. Sutliff

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 5, 1984No. 3397Published

1DissentBeck, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding on the appealability issue. I would quash this appeal. The appeal-ability of orders granting or denying alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and costs needs to be reappraised in light of the Divorce Code of 1980. Such reappraisal leads me to conclude that except in rare circumstances, such orders are interlocutory and unappealable. I believe this position is *503most consistent with fairness and justice to both parties, judicial economy, and the goals and policies behind the Divorce Code of 1980. Since I would quash the appeal on jurisdictional…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Piltzer v. Independence Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

13 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