Legal Opinion

Schulz v. Celotex Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1996No. 2977PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Murphy v. ArmstrongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Davison v. John W. Harper, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. City of Philadelphia v. TaskerCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jackson v. KassabSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. In Re a Conservatorship Proceeding Ex Rel. Germantown Conservancy, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Castle Roofing & Const. LLC v. Elize, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  4. Gebert v. Kane Freight Lines Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2002
  5. Jackson v. KassabSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

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