Legal Opinion

Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 16, 2018No. 1285 EDA 2016PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. BorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Kuchinic v. McCrorySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kessock, J. v. Conestoga Title InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  2. Matthews, J. v. Batroney, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. Matthews, J. v. Batroney, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. A.Y. v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  5. D'Amico, J. v. Covanta Holding Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2024

2 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