Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Carter v. United States Steel Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1990No. 1652 and 1688Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOlszewski, Justice

We, too, would affirm the trial court’s order denying judgment n.o.v.; however, we cannot join the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s order granting a new trial in favor of the United States Steel Corporation (USX) on any grounds.

The Carters assert that we should reverse the trial court granting new trial on grounds of prejudicial publicity. We believe that the prejudicial publicity did not constitute an *293extra-evidentiary prejudicial influence sufficient to justify a new trial; accordingly, we would reverse.

Initially, we note that the learned trial judge, apparently in accordance…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Gradel v. InouyeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Commonwealth v. ZlatovichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Commonwealth v. SeroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Lobozzo v. Adam Eidemiller, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

25 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