Legal Opinion

Kersey Manufacturing Co. v. Rozic

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 27, 1966No. Appeal, 155PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

The sole question raised on this appeal1 is whether the action of a trial judge in communicating with a *566jury, through a court crier and in the absence of unnotified counsel, requires the grant of a new trial?

On April 10, 1959, Kersey Manufacturing Co. (Kersey) instituted an assumpsit action in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County against August Rozic (Rozic). Suit was based upon a written conditional sales contract involving certain heavy machinery. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict against Kersey and in favor of Rozic. Motion for a new trial…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sebastianelli v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Gould v. ArgiroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Glendenning v. SprowlsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  4. Sommer v. HuberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  5. Hunsicker v. WaidelichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BradleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Commonwealth v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Yarsunas v. BorosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Argo v. GoodsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. Klesser v. StoneWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1973

24 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