Waasdorp v. DiGiuseppe, 423 A.2d 1047 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Waasdorp v. DiGiuseppe, 423 A.2d 1047 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 1982–2025 · 2 courts · …while the question of reasonableness is normally left for the jury, that issue may be taken from a jury when the court concludes that fair and reasonable persons could not differ in their conclusions based on the available facts. at p. 1048 ⚠ not in text
26 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LOLA Drilling v. Rice Drilling (2×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
“While the question of reasonableness is normally left for the jury, that issue may be taken from a jury when the court concludes that fair and reasonable persons could not differ in their conclusions based on the available facts.” Wallace v. Horvath, 423 A.2d 1047, 1048 (Pa.Super. 1980) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orozco v. Children's Hosp. of Philadelphia
E.D. Pa. · 1986 · confidence medium
See, e.g., O’Brien v. Eli Lilly & Co., 668 F.2d 704, 709-11 (3d Cir.1981); Ciprut, 540 F.Supp. at 820-21 ; Bosworth v. Plummer, 510 F.Supp. 1027, 1032 (W.D.Pa.1981); Wallace v. Horvath, 283 Pa.Super. 179 , 423 A.2d 1047, 1049-50 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. McComsey (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1983 · confidence medium
Tenny, Builder & Developer v. Dauphin Deposit Bank & Trust Co., 302 Pa.Super. 342, 345 , 448 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1982); Taylor v. Tukanowicz, 290 Pa.Super. 581, 585 , 435 A.2d 181, 183 (1981); Wallace v. Horvath, 283 Pa.Super. 179, 183 , 423 A.2d 1047, 1049 (1980); Acker v. Palena, supra 260 Pa.Super. at 219 , 393 A.2d at 1232 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeMartino v. Albert Einstein Medical Center (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1983 · confidence medium
Wallace v. Horvath, 283 Pa. Superior Ct. 179, 180-181 , 423 A.2d 1047, 1048 (1980), Acker v. Patena, 260 Pa. Superior Ct. 214 , 393 A.2d 1230 (1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wm. B. Tenny, Etc. v. Dauphin Deposit Bk.
Pa. · 1982 · confidence medium
“While the question of reasonableness is normally left for the jury, that issue may be taken from a jury when the court concludes that fair and reasonable persons could not differ in their conclusions based on the available facts.” Wallace v. Horvath, supra 283 Pa.Super. at 181 , 423 A.2d at 1048 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Pocono International Raceway Inc. v. Pocono Produce Inc. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wallace v. Horvath, 283 Pa.Super. 179 , 423 A.2d 1047 (1980); Keating v. Zemel, 281 Pa.Super. 129 , 421 A.2d 1181 (1980).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Coyne v. Porter-Hayden Co.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Wallace v. Horvath, 283 Pa.Super. 179, 184 , 423 A.2d 1047, 1050 (1980) (BROSKY, J„ concurring). 3 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Beth WAASDORP and Donald Waasdorp,
v.
Carol F. DiGIUSEPPE and Nicola DiGiuseppe, Appellants
1970.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Dec 29, 1980.
423 A.2d 1047
Charles W. Craven, Philadelphia, for appellants., Joseph H. Reiter, Philadelphia, for appellees.
Price, Wickersham, Lipez.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PRICE, Judge:

This appeal, has been taken from the order entered September 12, 1979, by the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. That order dismisses the motions for new trial filed on behalf of appellants. There has been no entry of judgment.

Where a motion for a new trial is made after a verdict and the motion is overruled, no appeal lies from the order refusing the new trial. Such an order is interlocutory and is unappealable. General Electric Credit Corporation v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 437 Pa. 463, 263 A.2d 448 (1970); Pa.R.A.P. 301.

[*179] In such cases, the appeal must be from the judgment which is entered on the verdict. General Electric Credit Corporation v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, et al., supra.

It is, therefore, necessary to quash this appeal. Further, the principles of law and procedure that require this result are too vital and necessary to waive or overlook, even in the name of judicial economy.

The appeal is quashed.