Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EDWARD ANSKIS v. SELMA FISCHER AND LOUIS FISCHER AND MICHAEL LENAHAN AND SEARS (01/08/82)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


filed: January 8, 1982.

EDWARD ANSKIS, APPELLANT,
v.
SELMA FISCHER AND LOUIS FISCHER AND MICHAEL LENAHAN AND SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY

No. 760 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 1780 June Term, 1972.

COUNSEL

Harry J. Oxman, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Jay E. Plunk, Jr., Philadelphia, for Fischer.

Gerard Bruderle, Philadelphia, for Lenahan, et al.

Spaeth, Hoffman and Van der Voort, JJ. Van der Voort, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 294 Pa. Super. Page 214]

OPINION

Following trial in this trespass case, the jury returned a $150,000 verdict for appellant against the additional defendants, Michael Lenahan and Sears, Roebuck & Co., and found for defendants, Selma and Louis Fischer, against appellant. The additional defendants promptly moved to have the verdict molded because appellant's claim was barred under the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, art. III, § 303, as amended; 77 P.S. § 481. The lower court granted their motion and entered the following order:

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 1978, upon Motion made on behalf of the additional defendants, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the verdict entered against additional defendants, Michael Lenahan and Sears, Roebuck, & Co., be and hereby is molded in favor of said additional defendants in accordance with the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, and further that any judgment entered thereon hereafter be marked "satisfied".

Appellant subsequently filed a motion to remove the order of November 13 and a motion for a new trial. On March 3, 1980, the lower court denied those motions. This appeal followed.

[ 294 Pa. Super. Page 215]

It is well settled that an order refusing a new trial or judgment n. o. v. is not appealable until it has been reduced to judgment and docketed. See, e.g., Levin v. Desert Palace, Inc., 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 408, 435 A.2d 1292 (1981); Thomas M. Durkin & Sons, Inc. v. Nether Providence Township School Authority, 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 402, 435 A.2d 1288 (1981); Gaertner v. F. Jay Smith, Inc., 291 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 435 A.2d 1257 (1981). Accord Hayes v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 292 Pa. Superior Ct. 470, 437 A.2d 770 (1981). "Similarly, an appeal from an order denying a motion to remove a non-suit is interlocutory and non-appealable." Levin v. Desert Palace, Inc., supra 291 Pa. Super. at 408, 435 A.2d at 1292, quoting Thomas M. Durkin & Sons, Inc. v. Nether Providence Township Page 215} School Authority, supra 291 Pa. Super. at 404, 435 A.2d at 1289. The denial of appellant's motion for a new trial was not reduced to judgment, and, therefore, is clearly not appealable at this time. The denial of appellant's motion to remove the order molding the verdict is analogous to an order refusing to remove a non-suit, an order which must also be reduced to judgment before it may be appealed. Accordingly, because judgment has not been entered on the docket, we must quash this appeal.

Appeal quashed.

19820108

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.