Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Metzergreen2 sentences2020“Determining whether prejudice has occurred is a fact[-]specific inquiry.” Commonwealth v. Metzer, 634 A.2d 228, 235 (Pa. Super. 1993). 2016The trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine weighs potentially prejudicial evidence and may preclude it before it reaches the jury, “thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error could occur at trial which would force the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Metzer, 634 A.2d 228, 232 (Pa. Super. 1993) (internal citations omitted). 4 One basis to preclude testimony is when the adverse party would “be prejudiced as a result of the testimony going beyond the fair scope of the expert’s report.” Whitake | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Padillagreen2 sentences2020These motions exist, in part, to provide -5- J-S73025-19 a pre-trial opportunity to exclude evidence “that may prove to be so prejudicial that no instruction could cure the harm to the defendant, thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error [would require] the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion.” Id. 2016The purpose of a motion in limine is two-fold: "l) to provide the trial court with a pre-trial opportunity to weigh carefully and consider potentially prejudicial and harmful evidence; and 2) to preclude evidence from ever reaching a jury that may prove to be so prejudicial that no instruction could cure the harm to the defendant, thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error could occur at trial which would force the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion." Commonwealth v. Padilla, 2007 PA Super 130 , <J<J 9,10, 923 A.2 | 1 | 2 |
Whitaker v. Frankford Hospitalgreen2 sentences2016The trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine weighs potentially prejudicial evidence and may preclude it before it reaches the jury, “thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error could occur at trial which would force the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Metzer, 634 A.2d 228, 232 (Pa. Super. 1993) (internal citations omitted). 4 One basis to preclude testimony is when the adverse party would “be prejudiced as a result of the testimony going beyond the fair scope of the expert’s report.” Whitake 2016The trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine weighs potentially prejudicial evidence and may preclude it before it reaches the jury, “thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error could occur at trial which would force the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Metzer, 634 A.2d 228, 232 (Pa. Super. 1993) (internal citations omitted). 4 One basis to preclude testimony is when the adverse party would “be prejudiced as a result of the testimony going beyond the fair scope of the expert’s report.” Whitake | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sheltongreen1 sentence2016Hosp., 790 A.2d 1022, 1029 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted)); see also Shelton, 640 A.2d at 895 (“It is well established in this Commonwealth that the purpose of the discovery rules is to permit the parties in a criminal matter to be prepared for trial.”). - 10 - J-A26018-16 2000) (citation omitted)).5 Moreover, “a ruling on a pre-trial motion in Limine provides counsel with a basis upon which to structure trial strategy.” Metzer, 634 A.2d at 232 . | 1 | 1 |
Corrado v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitalgreen1 sentence2016Hosp., 790 A.2d 1022, 1029 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted)); see also Shelton, 640 A.2d at 895 (“It is well established in this Commonwealth that the purpose of the discovery rules is to permit the parties in a criminal matter to be prepared for trial.”). - 10 - J-A26018-16 2000) (citation omitted)).5 Moreover, “a ruling on a pre-trial motion in Limine provides counsel with a basis upon which to structure trial strategy.” Metzer, 634 A.2d at 232 . | 1 | 1 |
Coffey v. Minwax Co., Inc.green1 sentence2016The trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine weighs potentially prejudicial evidence and may preclude it before it reaches the jury, “thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error could occur at trial which would force the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Metzer, 634 A.2d 228, 232 (Pa. Super. 1993) (internal citations omitted). 4 One basis to preclude testimony is when the adverse party would “be prejudiced as a result of the testimony going beyond the fair scope of the expert’s report.” Whitake | 1 | 1 |
Whyte v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1998Whyte v. Robinson, 421 Pa. Super. 33, 38 , 617 A.2d 380, 383 (1992). 1998Whyte v. Robinson, 421 Pa. Super. 33, 38 , 617 A.2d 380, 383 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Nollgreen2 sentences1998“The purpose of a motion in limine is twofold: (1) to provide the trial court with a pretrial opportunity to weigh carefully and consider potentially prejudicial and harmful evidence; and (2) to preclude evidence from ever reaching a jury that may prove to be so prejudicial that no instruction could cure the harm to the defendant, thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error could occur at trial which would force the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Noll, 443 Pa. Super. 602, 605-606 , 662 A.2d 11 1998“The purpose of a motion in limine is twofold: (1) to provide the trial court with a pretrial opportunity to weigh carefully and consider potentially prejudicial and harmful evidence; and (2) to preclude evidence from ever reaching a jury that may prove to be so prejudicial that no instruction could cure the harm to the defendant, thus reducing the possibility that prejudicial error could occur at trial which would force the trial court to either declare a mistrial in the middle of the case or grant a new trial at its conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Noll, 443 Pa. Super. 602, 605-606 , 662 A.2d 11 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.