Legal Opinion

Mirabel v. Morales

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 2, 2012PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

PANELLA, J.

Before us is an appeal from the Appellants, Richard Schulgen and Comcast of Philadelphia II, LLC (Comcast), from a post-trial order denying part of the Appellants’ motion for a new trial. On February 15, 2011, a jury found the Appellants liable for injuries the Appellee, Olga Mirabal,1 suffered in a car accident. After the verdict, the Appellants filed a motion for a new trial because Mirabal’s counsel made improper statements at closing regarding race and the size and wealth of Comcast. The trial court granted part of the Appellants’ motion and awarded a new trial solely…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Feld v. MerriamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Holden v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  3. Commonwealth v. AdkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Troncatti v. SmereczniakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. Lambert v. PBI INDUSTRIESSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Dubose, R. v. Quinlan, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Kelly, R. v. The Carman Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  3. Polett v. Public Communications, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Renna v. SchadtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. Banohashim v. R.S. Enterprises, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

33 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