of pre-trial motions in limine as well as the court’s ruling sustaining MMC’s objection to the adverse inference argument made by the Hawkeys in closing. The trial judge denied these post-trial motions. On May 10, 2004, MMC filed a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment in their favor. It appears from the record that judgment was never properly entered. This Court has held, however, that we may review an appeal in the absence of a properly entered judgment where “the order from which a party appeals was clearly intended to be a final pronouncement on the matters discussed .... ” Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TED-CO Constr. Corp., 441 Pa.Super. 281, 657 A.2d 511, 514 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see McCormick v. N.E. Bank of Pa., 522 Pa. 251, 561 A.2d 328, 330 n. 1 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we proceed to review the
holding where appellants motion for posttrial relief was not reduced to judgment by praecipe in the interests of judicial economy we shall regard as done that which ought to have been done internal quotation marks omitted holding that state officials cannot have been expected to predict the future course of constitutional law internal quotation marks omitted holding that bankruptcy is no exception to the due process principle that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party to or to which he has not been made a party by service of process internal quotation marks omitted holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted