Miller Electric Co., v. Tate Deweese and Just Mark, Inc., v. Birmingham Bistro, Inc. (Concurring Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-1-2005] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT MILLER ELECTRIC COMPANY, V. TATE DEWEESE AND JUST-MARK, INC., V. BIRMINGHAM BISTRO, INC. APPEAL OF: BIRMINGHAM BISTRO, INC. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : NO. 26 WAP 2004 Appeal from the Order of Superior Court entered August 25, 2003 at No. 1420 WDA 2002 quashing the appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, entered July 10, 2002 at No. AR 95-4332. ARGUED: March 7, 2005 CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY DECIDED: OCTOBER 17, 2006 I join the opinion of the majority. The majority reached the only result possible given the existing constraints of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. I write separately to suggest that the problem of dual appellate tracks for cases involving a judgment on the merits of a legal action and the post-trial motions naturally arising therefrom; and the later disposition of separate post-trial ancillary matters, such as a motion for attorney fees, should be referred to our civil rules committee for review. Perhaps the committee can propose a solution that would permit a single appeal in cases involving multiple direct and ancillary post-trial matters.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.