Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Philadelphia v. Housing Improvement Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1984No. 02126Published

1DissentJohnson, Judge

I dissent. My review of the record convinces me that appellant’s appeal was not timely filed, and therefore, should be quashed.

- When, on April 5, 1983, the trial court dismissed appellant’s petition to redeem property, appellant was for all intents and purposes out of court. This order was therefore a final order. Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. 68, 394 A.2d 542 (1978). As such, an appeal was required to have been filed within 30 days of this order. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). Appellant’s appeal was not filed until August 12, 1983, more than four months after the final order. Clearly the appeal was not timely.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Malakoff v. Zambar, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Boden v. TompkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. International Lands, Inc. v. FinemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Slaughter v. GruntzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

1 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