Legal Opinion

Poust v. Hylton

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 10, 2007PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY DANIELS, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Donald Poust, Sr., appeals from the order of the trial court, entered on November 15, 2006, denying Appellant’s post-trial motion seeking a new trial because of the trial court’s failure to grant Appellant’s motion for a mistrial. Appellant’s motion for a mistrial was made during trial because of the flagrant and intentional violation by defense counsel of a pretrial order of the trial court, precluding defense counsel from referencing the word “cocaine” with respect to Appellant’s decedent during the presentation of evidence at trial. For the following…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BusanetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Holden v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  3. Stevenson v. Pennsylvania Sports & Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  4. Narciso v. Mauch Chunk TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  5. Commonwealth v. PadillaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Mirabel v. MoralesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Deeds Ex Rel. Renzulli v. University of Pennsylvania Medical CenterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Brown, F. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  4. Stapas, J. v. Giant Eagle, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Buttaccio v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

22 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