Legal Opinion

Setlock v. Cohick

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County

Decided March 14, 1933No. 413Published

1Opinion of the Court

Reese, P. J.,

The plaintiff, in whose favor the jury returned a verdict for $100, made a motion for new trial, principally on the ground that the verdict was inadequate.

It is necessary in the first instance to pass upon the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff’s motion for new trial was not made within the time prescribed by the rules of court. Rule 228 provides: “Motion for new trial . . . shall be made within five days after the verdict. When the verdict has been returned within the last five days of the court, such motion shall be made before the final adjournment, unless, by special…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. GaborSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  2. Lance v. BonnellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
  3. Jones v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Cronrath v. BorderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  5. Harrison v. GoldsteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927

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