unequivocal rule in Pennsylvania

2017See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(a). [[Image here]] With this unequivocal rule, there is no danger that parties will be confused as to whether they should file post-trial motions or proceed directly to an appeal from an order entered by a trial court in an action in equity. 805 A.2d at 494-96 (emphasis in original). 3 Under Rule 227.1, a party that has received a trial court’s decision after a non-jury trial may move to have the trial court “direct the entry of judgment in favor of any party.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(a)(2).

2012The court stated, “With this unequivocal rule, there is no danger that parties will be confused as to whether they should file post-trial motions or proceed directly to an appeal from an order entered by a trial court in an action in equity.” Id. at 470 , 569 Pa. at 462 , 805 A.2d at 496 (footnote omitted).

2014See Commonwealth v. Gleason, 785 A.2d 983, 986 (Pa. 2001) (in deciding whether police officer has probable cause to conduct traffic stop for violation of Vehicle Code, court need only rely on specific facts articulated by officer to establish that vehicle or driver was in violation of some provision of Vehicle Code); Commonwealth v. Enick, 70 A.3d 843 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding officer had probable cause to stop vehicle after observing vehicle briefly cross double yellow line into oncoming traffic).

2006See Pottetti, 150 A.2d at 210 ("A pure bill of discovery is favored in equity and will be granted unless there is some well-founded objection against the exercise of the court's jurisdiction."). [21] We do not find, in Connecticut's law, an unequivocal requirement that such discovery will be granted only where a litigant has averred that absent such discovery his suit will not be able to proceed.

2006See Pottetti, 150 A.2d at 210 (“A pure bill of discovery is favored in equity and will be granted unless there is some well-founded objection against the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction.”). 21 We do not find, in Connecticut’s law, an unequivocal requirement that such discovery will be granted only where a litigant has averred that absent such discovery his suit will not be able to proceed.

2002See In re J.J.F., J.R.F., 729 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super.1999) (remanding case for trial court to enter a decree nisi where trial court entered an order without decree nisi and appellant filed exceptions as well as notice of appeal); Christopher M’s Hand Poured Fudge, Inc. v. Hennon, 699 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Pa.Super.1997) (appellant’s failure to file post-trial motions is excused because trial court entered opinion and order instead of decree nisi); Altomare v. Altomare, 355 Pa.Super. 391 , 513 A.2d 486 , 487 n. 1 (1986) (appellant did not waive claims by failing to file post-trial motions because tri

2002See In re J.J.F., J.R.F., 729 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super.1999) (remanding case for trial court to enter a decree nisi where trial court entered an order without decree nisi and appellant filed exceptions as well as notice of appeal); Christopher M's Hand Poured Fudge, Inc. v. Hennon, 699 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Pa.Super.1997) (appellant's failure to file post-trial motions is excused because trial court entered opinion and order instead of decree nisi); Altomare v. Altomare, 355 Pa.Super. 391 , 513 A.2d 486 , 487 n. 1 (1986) (appellant did not waive claims by failing to file post-trial motions because tri

2002See In re J.J.F., J.R.F., 729 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super.1999) (remanding case for trial court to enter a decree nisi where trial court entered an order without decree nisi and appellant filed exceptions as well as notice of appeal); Christopher M’s Hand Poured Fudge, Inc. v. Hennon, 699 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Pa.Super.1997) (appellant’s failure to file post-trial motions is excused because trial court entered opinion and order instead of decree nisi); Altomare v. Altomare, 355 Pa.Super. 391 , 513 A.2d 486 , 487 n. 1 (1986) (appellant did not waive claims by failing to file post-trial motions because tri

2002See In re J.J.F., J.R.F., 729 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super.1999) (remanding case for trial court to enter a decree nisi where trial court entered an order without decree nisi and appellant filed exceptions as well as notice of appeal); Christopher M's Hand Poured Fudge, Inc. v. Hennon, 699 A.2d 1272, 1274 (Pa.Super.1997) (appellant's failure to file post-trial motions is excused because trial court entered opinion and order instead of decree nisi); Altomare v. Altomare, 355 Pa.Super. 391 , 513 A.2d 486 , 487 n. 1 (1986) (appellant did not waive claims by failing to file post-trial motions because tri

1990The existence of evidence of a continuing course of similar sexual abuse throughout a period which extends into the applicable limitations period, coupled with an unequivocal instruction as to the parameters of the limitations period, distinguishes this case in factually material respects from the scenario presented in Commonwealth v. Thek, 376 Pa.Super. 390, 402-03 , 546 A.2d 83, 90 (1988), wherein a superficially similar claim was found to be meritorious.

1990The existence of evidence of a continuing course of similar sexual abuse throughout a period which extends into the applicable limitations period, coupled with an unequivocal instruction as to the parameters of the limitations period, distinguishes this case in factually material respects from the scenario presented in Commonwealth v. Thek, 376 Pa.Super. 390, 402-03 , 546 A.2d 83, 90 (1988), wherein a superficially similar claim was found to be meritorious.