Schulz v. Celotex Corp.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
DEL SOLE, Judge:
Following an adverse jury verdict in a reverse bifurcated trial involving asbestos exposure claims, the plaintiff filed Rule 227.1 Post-trial Motions. The trial court dismissed these motions because the plaintiff failed to file a brief as required by Philadelphia Civil Rule 227.1 which the court recites in its February 27,1995 Opinion on page 3 as follows:
(E) Briefs.(1) All briefs shall be filed in the post-trial motions unit of Motion Court. The moving party shall file its brief in support of its motion within thirty-five days after the date of the notice of availability of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Murphy v. ArmstrongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Davison v. John W. Harper, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- City of Philadelphia v. TaskerCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jackson v. KassabSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- In Re a Conservatorship Proceeding Ex Rel. Germantown Conservancy, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
- Castle Roofing & Const. LLC v. Elize, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
- Gebert v. Kane Freight Lines Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2002
- Jackson v. KassabSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.