Adoption of G. M

21 Citing cases

  1. In re the Fourth Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury

    596 Pa. 546 (Pa. 2008)   Cited 4 times

    Finality, for purposes of appeal, has been determined in this Court by looking at the practical ramifications of the order in question. Adoption of G.M., 398 A.2d 642 (Pa. 1979). A presentment is a recommendation by a Grand Jury that charges be brought. It is a summary of what the Grand Jury heard during its tenure and what it concludes should happen with the information it assembled.

  2. Fried v. Fried

    509 Pa. 89 (Pa. 1985)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that challenges to equitable distribution are interlocutory and unappealable until entry of a final decree in divorce

    It is axiomatic that an appeal will lie only from a final order unless otherwise permitted by statute or rule. Adoption of G.M., 484 Pa. 24, 398 A.2d 642 (1979); Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. 68, 72, 394 A.2d 542 (1978); T.C.R. Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 372 A.2d 721 (1977); Piltzer v. Independence Federal Savings and Loan Association, 456 Pa. 402, 319 A.2d 677 (1974); Caplan v. Keystone Weaving Mill, 431 Pa. 407, 246 A.2d 384 (1968); Stadler v. Mt. Oliver Borough, supra; Coleman v. Huffman, 348 Pa. 580, 36 A.2d 724 (1944); Paul v. Smith, 343 Pa. 63, 21 A.2d 919 (1941). See also Pa.R.A.P. 311, 312 and 341(a).

  3. In re Adoption of T. S. R

    413 A.2d 389 (Pa. 1980)

    Thus, the Order appealed from is not final and not properly subject to review at this time. See Adoption of G. M., 484 Pa. 24, 398 A.2d 642 (1979). Accordingly, the appeal is quashed, appellants to pay costs.

  4. Straw v. Fair

    639 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 8, 2022)

    "We recognize that the proper approach in deciding whether an order is a final and[,] hence[,] an appealable one is to apply practical considerations after examining the ramifications of the order." Adoption of M., 398 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. 1979) (citation omitted). We "must look beyond the technical effects of the [trial court] adjudication to its practical ramifications."

  5. Petition to Release Adoption Records

    439 Pa. Super. 273 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    Foflygen v. R. Zemel, M.D. (PC), 420 Pa. Super. 18, 28, 615 A.2d 1345, 1350 (1992), allocatur denied, 535 Pa. 619, 629 A.2d 1380 (1993). See also: Jenkins v. Hospital of Medical College ofPennsylvania, 535 Pa. 252, 259, 634 A.2d 1099, 1102 (1993); Adoption of G.M., 484 Pa. 24, 27, 398 A.2d 642, 643 (1979); Appeal of Gannon, 428 Pa. Super. 349, 360, 631 A.2d 176, 181 (1993). "A final order is one which ends the litigation or, alternatively, disposes of the entire case."

  6. Schwartz v. Schwartz

    601 A.2d 349 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    A bifurcated decree in divorce had been entered on November 22, 1989, but the distribution of marital property was deferred. It is clear that an appeal will lie only from a final order unless an appeal is otherwise permitted by statute or rule of court. See: Adoption of G.M., 484 Pa. 24, 27, 398 A.2d 642, 643 (1979); Blackman v. Katz, 390 Pa. Super. 257, 261, 568 A.2d 642, 644 (1990); Katz v. Katz, 356 Pa. Super. 461, 465, 514 A.2d 1374, 1376 (1986), allocatur denied, 515 Pa. 581, 527 A.2d 542 (1987). A final order is one which ends the litigation or, alternatively, disposes of the entire case.

  7. Campbell v. Campbell

    357 Pa. Super. 483 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that an appeal filed before the trial court enters a final decree is "rendered final by the entry of a decree in divorce" (footnote omitted)

    In fact, a final decree in divorce had not been entered at the time of the appeal. Unless otherwise permitted by statute or rule, an appeal will lie only from a final order. Adoption of G.M., 484 Pa. 24, 27, 398 A.2d 642, 644 (1979); Beasley v. Beasley, 348 Pa. Super. 124, 126, 501 A.2d 679 (1985). A final order has been defined as one which ends the litigation or disposes of the entire case.

  8. Sanderbeck v. Sanderbeck

    327 Pa. Super. 461 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)   Cited 3 times

    An order is final if it terminates litigation or disposes of the entire case. Adoption of G.M., 484 Pa. 24, 27, 398 A.2d 642, 644 (1979); T.C.R. Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337, 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977). An order is interlocutory and not final if it does not effectively put a litigant "out of court."

  9. Miller v. Hurst

    302 Pa. Super. 235 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an order refusing to remove a compulsory nonsuit is final and appealable

    Because such a determination is a final order, it is appealable to the same extent as other final orders. SeeAdoption of G.M., 484 Pa. 24, 398 A.2d 642 (1979); Feingold v.Bell of Pennsylvania, 477 Pa. 1, 383 A.2d 791 (1977); T.C.R.Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 372 A.2d 721 (1977).

  10. Freeze v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co.

    301 Pa. Super. 344 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)   Cited 52 times
    In Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., 301 Pa. Super. 344, 447 A.2d 999 (1982), our court held that a deceased victim's estate is entitled to work loss benefits.

    See Giannini v. Foy, supra. And see Adoption ofG.M., 484 Pa. 24, 398 A.2d 642 (1979); Bell v. BeneficialConsumer Discount Co., 465 Pa. 225, 348 A.2d 734 (1975). Ordinarily, an order which terminates litigation or disposes of the entire case is final, and an order is interlocutory and not final unless it effectively puts the litigant "out of court."