damages claim in Pennsylvania

2017See Trial Court Opinion, 7/26/2016, at 8-13; see also Hatwood, 55 A.3d at 1240 .

2016See Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/15, at 8-9; see also Hatwood v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 55 A.3d 1229, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating that the calculation of damages is a question of fact); Empire Properties, Inc. v. Equireal, Inc., 674 A.2d 297, 304 (Pa. Super. 1996) (stating that in a breach of contract action, “[t]he purpose of damages is to put the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been in but for the - 11 - J-S11043-16 breach.”).

2025See Digital Commc’ns Warehouse, Inc. v. Allen Invests., LLC, 223 A.3d 278, 283-84 (Pa. Super. 2019) (concluding the trial court order—which purported to grant the appellant’s motion to strike a judgment as to damages only and ordered a damages hearing—essentially opened the default judgment entered against the appellant, and should be treated as an order granting a petition to open the judgment); see also generally Centric Bank v. Sciore, 263 A.3d 31, 45 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“When a complaint for confession of judgment is filed … the plaintiff need only aver a default and allege the amounts due.

2025See Digital Commc’ns Warehouse, Inc. v. Allen Invests., LLC, 223 A.3d 278, 283-84 (Pa. Super. 2019) (concluding the trial court order—which purported to grant the appellant’s motion to strike a judgment as to damages only and ordered a damages hearing—essentially opened the default judgment entered against the appellant, and should be treated as an order granting a petition to open the judgment); see also generally Centric Bank v. Sciore, 263 A.3d 31, 45 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“When a complaint for confession of judgment is filed … the plaintiff need only aver a default and allege the amounts due.

2025Unless it is evident from the face of the instrument that the judgment is grossly excessive or includes recovery for items not authorized by the instrument, a challenge to the accuracy of such amounts should be resolved by a petition to open the judgment.” (emphasis added; citation omitted)); Neducsin v. Caplan, 121 A.3d 498, 504 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“A petition to open a confessed judgment is an appeal to the equitable powers of the court.” (emphasis added)).

2023Appellant first claims the trial court’s order involves a controlling question of law dictating all questions of liability, and informing the existence of the damages inquiry: • If [Appellant] is right and the 1990 Deed’s Oil and Gas Provision excepted and reserved the Subject Property’s oil and gas in [] Field, then Appellant has oil and gas interests in the Subject Property that are being clouded by [EQT and Rice Drilling (Respondents),] and [Appellant] is being damaged by [Respondents’] extraction and sale of oil and gas from the Subject Property because the entire basis of the [Respondents

2023Appellant first claims the trial court’s order involves a controlling question of law dictating all questions of liability, and informing the existence of the damages inquiry: • If [Appellant] is right and the 1990 Deed’s Oil and Gas Provision excepted and reserved the Subject Property’s oil and gas in [] Field, then Appellant has oil and gas interests in the Subject Property that are being clouded by [EQT and Rice Drilling (Respondents),] and [Appellant] is being damaged by [Respondents’] extraction and sale of oil and gas from the Subject Property because the entire basis of the [Respondents

2021See id.

2019See Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d 609 , 617 n.4 (Pa.Super. 2013) (stating we may affirm trial court on any basis).

2017Compare E-Z Parks, Inc. v. Larson, 498 A.2d 1364, 1369-70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985), aff’d without op., 503 A.2d 931 (Pa. 1986) (injunction restraining local agency from taking action is not barred by PSTCA because it is not a damages claim).

2017Compare E-Z Parks, Inc. v. Larson, 498 A.2d 1364, 1369-70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985), aff’d without op., 503 A.2d 931 (Pa. 1986) (injunction restraining local agency from taking action is not barred by PSTCA because it is not a damages claim).

2016See Trial Court Opinion, 8/28/15, at 8-9; see also Hatwood v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 55 A.3d 1229, 1240 (Pa. Super. 2012) (stating that the calculation of damages is a question of fact); Empire Properties, Inc. v. Equireal, Inc., 674 A.2d 297, 304 (Pa. Super. 1996) (stating that in a breach of contract action, “[t]he purpose of damages is to put the plaintiff in the position he or she would have been in but for the - 11 - J-S11043-16 breach.”).

2016See N.T., 6/11/15, at 138-42; see generally Warfield v. Shermer, 910 A.2d 734, 737 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that “[t]he purpose for Rule 227.1 is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct errors in its ruling and avert the need for appellate review.”) (citation omitted). - 12 - J-S11043-16 President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins the memorandum.

2014We must first note the many and largely insurmountable obstacles to ensure that the notes of testimony from the damages hearing was included appellant to ensure that the original record certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper review may constitute a waiver of the issues sought to be Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944, 950 (Pa.Super. 2004).1 Appellant is essentially arguing that she presented sufficient evidence of 1 Although this responsibility legally belongs to the appellant, it is our practice to contact the trial court to attempt to obtain vital, but missing p

2014We must first note the many and largely insurmountable obstacles to ensure that the notes of testimony from the damages hearing was included appellant to ensure that the original record certified for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct a proper review may constitute a waiver of the issues sought to be Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944, 950 (Pa.Super. 2004).1 Appellant is essentially arguing that she presented sufficient evidence of 1 Although this responsibility legally belongs to the appellant, it is our practice to contact the trial court to attempt to obtain vital, but missing p

2002Incollingo v. Maurer, 394 Pa. Super. 352, 356 , 575 A.2d 939, 940-41 (1990); Phillip v. Clark, 385 Pa. Super. 229, 233 , 560 A.2d 777, 779 (1989).

2002Incollingo v. Maurer, 394 Pa. Super. 352, 356 , 575 A.2d 939, 940-41 (1990); Phillip v. Clark, 385 Pa. Super. 229, 233 , 560 A.2d 777, 779 (1989).

2002Incollingo v. Maurer, 394 Pa. Super. 352, 356 , 575 A.2d 939, 940-41 (1990); Phillip v. Clark, 385 Pa. Super. 229, 233 , 560 A.2d 777, 779 (1989).

2002Incollingo v. Maurer, 394 Pa. Super. 352, 356 , 575 A.2d 939, 940-41 (1990); Phillip v. Clark, 385 Pa. Super. 229, 233 , 560 A.2d 777, 779 (1989).

2002A court cannot lightly ignore the findings of a duly selected jury.” Neal by Neal v. Lu, 365 Pa.Super. 464 , 530 A.2d 103, 110 (1987) (citations omitted). ¶ 6 The standard to be applied in assessing the validity of a motion for JNOV is that [T]he evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and he must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference of fact arising therefrom, and any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in his favor.

2002A court cannot lightly ignore the findings of a duly selected jury.” Neal by Neal v. Lu, 365 Pa.Super. 464 , 530 A.2d 103, 110 (1987) (citations omitted). ¶ 6 The standard to be applied in assessing the validity of a motion for JNOV is that [T]he evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and he must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference of fact arising therefrom, and any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in his favor.

2002Checchio v. Frankford Hospital-Torresdale Division, 717 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa.Su *236 per.1998), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 633 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001). ¶ 4 Appellants’ first claim is that a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) as to the damages claim of Appellee Karen Burton-Lister should be entered in their favor “because there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.” (Appellants’ Brief at 4). ¶5 “The entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict ... is a drastic remedy.

1983See Zagari v. Gralka, 264 Pa.Superior Ct. 239, 399 A.2d 755 (1979).