Legal Opinion

Bonavitacola v. Cluver

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 16, 1993No. 3470PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

In this case we are called upon to determine whether we must quash the appeal because the order denying appellants’ post-verdict motions was not reduced to judgment. We conclude that quashal is inappropriate. Accordingly, we deny appellee’s motion to quash and address appellants’ arguments. Finding merit in none of appellants’ arguments, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Giving all reasonable inferences to the appellees, the jury verdict winners, we summarize the history of this case as follows. Dominic Bonavitacola had scheduled a dentist appointment with appellant, Dr.…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. DeHartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. United States v. Portsmouth Paving Corporation and R. Curtis Saunders, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
  4. Commonwealth v. RigginsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Carroll v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Fanning v. DavneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. MacKall v. FleegleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Henery v. ShadleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Tohan v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

21 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