Legal Opinion · Dissent

Niemiec v. Allstate Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 2, 1998No. 1329Published

1Dissent

McEWEN, President Judge,

dissenting.

While the expression of the majority demonstrates a careful analysis and provides a sound rationale, see: In re Class Action Appeal of Kelly, 704 A.2d 172 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), I am obliged, nonetheless and respectfully, to dissent. It strikes me that the interpretation of Rule 313 by this Court in DiLucido v. Terminix, 450 Pa.Super. 393, 676 A.2d 1237 (Pa.Super.1996), alio, denied, 546 Pa. 655, 684 A.2d 557 (1996), requires that this panel find that an appeal from an order dismissing the class action claim of appellants is immediately appealable pursuant to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. DiLucido v. Terminix International, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. In re Class Action Appeal of KellyCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API