Pennsylvania Supreme Court oral arguments over a nixed $2.1 million jury award to a man who was shot outside of a Pittsburgh convenience store focused heavily on whether a defendant should be able to challenge a lump sum verdict based on a breakdown of damages the attorneys were never supposed to be privy to.

In Stapas v. Giant Eagle, the justices granted allocatur to plaintiff John Stapas, who was disabled as a result of the shooting, but denied another allocatur petition filed by the defendant, Giant Eagle, corporate owner of the GetGo convenience store chain.