Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 1974No. Appeal, 341Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*261Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Pomeroy :

While I concur in the result reached by the majority in the case before us, I cannot agree that the time has come to discard the doctrine of basic and fundamental error as it applies to erroneous jury instructions. However limited its scope and rare the occasions for its application, I believe the doctrine has a useful role to play in protecting the constitutional rights of litigants in our courts.

The doctrine of basic and fundamental error has been long established in this and other jurisdictions.1 The doctrine is not confined to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Niederman v. BrodskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  3. Commonwealth v. JenningsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. In Re Adoption of R. I.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  5. Ward King v. Laborers International Union of North America, Union Local No. 818Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971

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