Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Miller v. Hurst

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 23, 1982No. 2630Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCirillo, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority holding that an order refusing to remove a compulsory nonsuit is appealable prior to the entry of judgment on the docket.

It is clear that an appeal does not lie from an order entering a nonsuit, but rather, an appeal may only be taken subsequent to the denial of a motion to remove the nonsuit. The majority holds that the appeal is actually taken from the order refusing to remove the nonsuit. However, I would hold that an order refusing to remove a nonsuit is not appealable until a judgment is entered on the order.

The majority has stated that an order…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. PAPIEVES Et Ux. v. KellySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Gibson v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Thomas M. Durkin & Sons, Inc. v. Nether Providence Township School AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Nord v. Devault Contracting Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Jurich v. United Parcel Service of New York, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

3 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