Legal Opinion

Straub v. Cherne Industries

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 15, 2005No. 57 and 58 EAP 2004PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Chief Justice CAPPY.

In this case, the Superior Court concluded that Appellee Cherne Industries (“Cherne”) was entitled to post-trial relief in the form of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“judgment n.o.v.”). We presently consider whether the Superior Court correctly determined that Cherne did not waive the ground upon which its request for a judgment n.o.v. was based. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Superior Court erred. Accordingly, we reverse the Order of the Superior Court.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. Appellant Douglas Straub…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. In Re HicksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Criswell v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Stumpf v. NyeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O'BrienSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Passarello v. GrumbineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Schmidt v. Boardman Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API