Vonada v. Long
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentFord Elliott, J.
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree that the procedural posture of this case excuses the filing of post-trial motions pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(c). The majority states that this matter was submitted to the court upon a case stated based. To the contrary, it would appear that the procedure below was a non-jury trial on stipulated facts. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1038.2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. (abolishing common law procedure of case stated in favor of submitting a case on stipulated facts for a decision by a judge without a jury). As noted by the majority, a trial on stipulated facts requires the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wynnewood Development, Inc. v. Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Penn v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Smotkin v. Manhattan-Ward, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1987