Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:
Omega Flex, Inc., appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Terence D. and Judith R. Tincher following a jury trial and the denial of its post-trial motions. Omega Flex contends that it is entitled to a new trial because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that the trial court's jury instruction contained a fundamental misstatement of the governing law. We agree and vacate the judgment, reverse the order denying post-trial relief, and remand for a new trial.
We draw our summary of the facts and much of the procedural history of the case from the Supreme…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Kuchinic v. McCrorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kessock, J. v. Conestoga Title InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Matthews, J. v. Batroney, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- Matthews, J. v. Batroney, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- A.Y. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- D'Amico, J. v. Covanta Holding Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.