Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices appeared to be at odds during a Tuesday hearing over the appropriate way to challenge a specific portion of a lump-sum verdict, with several expressing doubt on the idea that the defendants should have proposed an itemized verdict slip at trial.  

As the justices heard arguments over whether defendants could seek a new trial on pain and suffering damages on a non-itemized jury verdict, they disagreed on the duty the defendants had to anticipate the matters on which they would later seek an appeal. 

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]