Legal Opinion

Kaplan v. O'KANE

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 28, 2003PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

STEVENS, J.:

¶ 1 This is an appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in favor of Appellee Colleen O’Kane following a jury’s verdict that Appellant Laurence Kaplan did not suffer a serious impairment of bodily function as a result of a motor vehicle accident occurring on October 24, 1992. On appeal, Appellant contends (1) the trial court should have granted Appellant’s post-trial motion for a new trial on the basis that Appellee’s counsel intentionally informed the jury that Appellant was subject to limited tort, and (2) the trial court…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Boyle v. SteimanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Siegal v. StefanyszynSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. McMillen v. 84 Lumber, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Allied Electrical Supply Co. v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Factor v. Bicycle Technology Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Renninger, D. v. A & R Machine ShopSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Love-Diggs v. TirathSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Suburban West AbstractorsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Brown v. Sloane, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County2011
  5. Burnley, D. v. Loews HotelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2026

3 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