Bell v. Kater

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an order substantively affecting an issue raised in a pending appeal is a nullity
• holding that an order entered by trial court regarding the same matter after the matter was appealed was a legal nullity
• holding that where the certified record had not yet been remanded when the -3- J-A21005-23 trial court entered its order, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter such order and, therefore, such order is void
• finding that the trial court’s order was a legal nullity because it was entered prior to remand of the record when the trial court lacked jurisdiction
• determining that the trial court's order was a legal nullity because it was entered after appellant filed a notice of appeal and Rule 1701 did not provide any applicable exceptions
• stating that when “the record ha[s] not yet been remanded . . . [a] trial court d[oes] not have jurisdiction to enter such order and, therefore, such order is void[]” or, in other words, “is a nullity[]” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Poland
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-07-29· cited 38×
• Bell v. Kater
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-02-13· cited 24×
• Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-01-05· cited 17×
• Commonwealth v. Salley
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-09-10· cited 16×
• John v. Phila. Pizza Team, Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2019-05-01· cited 10×
• Com. v. Ailey, C.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-12-31