Spotts v. Reidell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
TAMILIA, Judge:
This is an appeal from the Order of the lower court denying appellants’ post-trial motions for a new trial and/or judgment n.o.v. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the basis that the lower court improperly admitted hearsay testimony which was substantially prejudicial to appellants’ case.
The facts are as follows. In June of 1980, appellant, Carl Spotts, telephoned his family doctor, A. Reed Allison, Jr., M.D., after noticing blood in his stool. On July 1, 1980, Dr. Allison performed a direct visual examination of the appellant’s rectum with a rigid sigmoidoscope. After…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
- Commonwealth v. DanielsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. CruzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Carney v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Commonwealth v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Primavera v. Celotex Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Lira v. Albert Einstein Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Reimer v. TienSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- American Future System, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Eastern PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Cooper v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.