Search for: "Tincher v. Tincher" Results 1 - 20 of 70
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am by Phil Dixon
Not only did [the third lawsuit] represent a third claim of excessive force against Officer Tincher, but the allegations regarding Tincher’s actions against [that plaintiff] were strikingly similar to Morgan’s own allegations against Tincher. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 5:49 am
Dec. 22, 2003) (Op. by Mundy, J.), addressed the issue of whether evidence of a product’s compliance with industry and government safety standards is admissible in a strict liability case following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s previous decision in the case of Tincher v. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 9:15 am by Howard Bashman
“We granted allowance of appeal to consider whether evidence of a product’s compliance with industry and governmental safety standards is admissible in products liability cases following this Court’s decision in Tincher v. [read post]
20 Feb 2020, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Jan. 17, 2020 Baylson, J.), the court reviewed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Tincher v. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
July 19, 2019), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas did not commit any error in a products liability case when it instructed the jury on both the consumer expectation test and the risk-utility test that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established in the case of Tincher v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Tincher’ Altered the Law (Somewhat)Back in 2014, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court released its much-anticipated products liability decision in the case of Tincher v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 4:30 am by Daniel E. Cummins
  However, the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion for post-trial relief has been reversed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in its February 16, 2018 decision in Tincher v. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Section 8371.The Supreme Court adopted the two-part test enunciated in the case of Terletsky v. v. [read post]