32:T4cf,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Slaseman v. Myers, 285 Pa. Super. 167","datePublished":"1981-01-16","legislationDate":"1981-01-16","citation":"Slaseman v. Myers, 285 Pa. Super. 167 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Superior Court of Pennsylvania","description":"Read the full text of Slaseman v. Myers (Slaseman v. Myers, 285 Pa. Super. 167 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)). This legal opinion, filed in 1981-01-16, from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/slaseman-v-myers--1937080"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/slaseman-v-myers--1937080","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Slaseman v. Myers, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Slaseman v. Myers, 285 Pa. Super. 167 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T4eb, PER CURIAM:

Following a non-jury trial in this wrongful death and survival action, the lower court rendered a decision awarding appellant-plaintiff damages of $139,408.28. Appellant filed exceptions from that decision in which she contended, inter alia, that the damages awarded were inadequate. The present appeal is from the order of the lower court en banc denying appellant’s exceptions. Here, as below, appellant challenges the adequacy of the damages awarded by the trial court. We are unable to reach the merits of this appeal, however, because judgment has not been entered in the case. Entry of judgment is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction. See 2 Goodrich-Amram 2d § 1038(b):1, at 501 (1976); cf. Lynch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 422 Pa. 488, 222 A.2d 925 (1966) (order dismissing post-verdict motions following jury trial is not *169 appealable). Consequently, this appeal is premature and must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.