From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rissi v. Levan

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 1, 1968
243 A.2d 353 (Pa. 1968)

Opinion

May 1, 1968.

July 1, 1968.

Appeals — Appealable orders — Failure to enter judgment on verdict — Quashing appeal.

Where judgment has not been entered on the verdict, an appeal must be quashed.

Mr. Justice MUSMANNO filed a dissenting opinion.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 25, Jan. T., 1968, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 63-11209, in case of Pasquale Rissi v. Mary Levan and Donald R. Thompson. Appeal quashed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before EPPINGER, P. J., specially presiding.

Verdict for defendants and plaintiff's motion for new trial denied. Plaintiff appealed.

R. C. Ferroni, with him Anthony D. Pirillo, Jr., and Pirillo and Carabello, for appellant.

Mason Avrigian and Robert W. Tredinnick, with them Curtis Wright, and Foulke, Knight, Stefan Timoney, and Bean, DeAngelis, Tredinnick Giangiulio, for appellees.


Judgment on the verdict has not been entered; hence, the appeal must be quashed.


Both parties in this case have filed briefs, we heard the arguments of the respective lawyers, the issues are simple, and we should decide what is involved. The Majority is quashing the appeal because judgment had not been entered on the verdict. Judgment, of course, should have been entered before the appeal was filed, but I believe it is unjust to require the parties to repeat the long, tedious, expensive proceeding of an appeal because of this technical defect in the proceedings. No one can possibly be harmed if we decide the case on its merits. With the enormous burden carried by this Court, it does not seem a demonstration of wisdom for us to say, we have heard the lawyers, we have read the briefs, we have studied the records, but we will do this all over again, when a lawyer or some clerk enters the judgment, a purely ministerial act, which has no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

Why can't this Court order the entering of the judgment below, and we then proceed to dispose of the case? This, to me, would seem an application of practical judgment, common sense, and a striving for justice.

I dissent to the quashing of the appeal for the reason given by the majority.


Summaries of

Rissi v. Levan

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 1, 1968
243 A.2d 353 (Pa. 1968)
Case details for

Rissi v. Levan

Case Details

Full title:Rissi, Appellant, v. Levan

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 1, 1968

Citations

243 A.2d 353 (Pa. 1968)
243 A.2d 353

Citing Cases

Stotsenburg v. Frost

The majority cites the correct statute and rule which determine the timeliness of the appeal. Nevertheless,…

Shellem v. Springfield School Dist

The action being for money damages, no right to appeal arose until, like a verdict, a judgment had been…