Flitter v. Chandor

1 Citing case

  1. Barak v. Karolizki

    2018 Pa. Super. 258 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018)   Cited 27 times
    Vacating and remanding to have trial court apply correct law when it improperly applied the preliminary injunction standard to lis pendens

    Because, procedurally speaking, McCahill is identical to the case at bar, and because U.S. National Bank failed to acknowledge McCahill as binding precedent – much less give it the full weight of stare decisis – we adhere to the rule from McCahill and disregard U.S. National Bank as dicta . Thus, we agree with Mr. Barak, that the order at bar striking the lis pendens is final under McCahill and immediately appealable. A panel of this Court, also without analysis, followed the U.S. National Bank 's dicta in Flitter v. Chandor , 364 Pa.Super. 252, 527 A.2d 1050, 1051 (1987), and held "that an order lifting a lis pendens is nonappealable ...." That statement resulted in partial quashal of the appeal.