Carnicelli v. Bartram
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
SPAETH, Judge:
This appeal is from an order granting a new trial. We reverse because the lower court relied on reasons not specifically assigned in the motion for new trial, and remand so that the court may consider those reasons that were specifically assigned.
-1-
An order granting or refusing to grant a new trial is within the discretion of the lower court. However, the discretion is not absolute, Decker v. Kulesza, 369 Pa. 259, 85 A.2d 413 (1952); Albert v. Alter, 252 Pa.Super. 203, 381 A.2d 459 (1977), and if the order is based on an error of law or represents an abuse of discretion, we…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Commonwealth v. BlairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. WatersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Tagnani v. LewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Albert v. AlterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Wilkes-Barre Iron & Wire Works, Inc. v. Pargas of Wilkes-Barre, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Jewelcor Jewelers & Distributors, Inc. v. CorrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Zvonik v. ZvonikSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Cherry v. WillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Jackson v. SpagnolaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.