Legal Opinion · Dissent

Claudio v. Dean MacHine Co., Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 1, 2001Published

1DissentJohnson, J.

¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the trial court acted beyond the permissible scope of its discretion in convening an evidentiary hearing after entry of the verdict without an offer of proof based on legally cognizable after-discovered evidence. When the court recorded the verdict, the record was closed and should have remained so unless the plaintiffs could demonstrate that evidence they sought to admit post trial could not have been discovered prior to trial through the exercise of due diligence. The Majority’s disposition effectively dispenses with this procedural safeguard,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Soderberg v. WeiselSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Hydro-Flex, Inc. v. Alter Bolt Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Beaumont v. ETL Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Township of Perkiomen v. MestSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Township of Perkiomen v. MestCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

1 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