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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1984–1991 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. Taylorgreen2 sentences1991We stated in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 425 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1230 (1984): Whether a new trial should be granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is ad dressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail. 1991We stated in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 425 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1230 (1984): Whether a new trial should be granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is ad dressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail. | 7 | 8 |
Commonwealth v. Samplegreen2 sentences1988Whether a new trial should be *353 granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.’ Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 425 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1229-30 (1984); accord, Commonwea 1988Whether a new trial should be *353 granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.’ Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 425 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1229-30 (1984); accord, Commonwea | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Millergreen2 sentences1988Whether a new trial should be *353 granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.’ Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 425 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1229-30 (1984); accord, Commonwea 1988Whether a new trial should be *353 granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a new trial imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.’ Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 425 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1229-30 (1984); accord, Commonwea | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Whitemangreen2 sentences1986The applicable standard of review for such issues has been articulated by this court in Commonwealth v. Whiteman, id., 336 Pa.Superior Ct. at 125, 485 A.2d at 462 , 4 as follows: Whether a new trial should be granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way *435 but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a 1986The applicable standard of review for such issues has been articulated by this court in Commonwealth v. Whiteman, id., 336 Pa.Superior Ct. at 125, 485 A.2d at 462 , 4 as follows: Whether a new trial should be granted on grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion____ The test is not whether the court would have decided the case in the same way *435 but whether the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to make the award of a | 1 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Purcellgreen2 sentences1991See also, Commonwealth v. Whiteman, 336 Pa.Super. 120 , 485 A.2d 459 (1984). 2 As recently as Commonwealth v. Purcell, 403 Pa.Super. 342 , 589 A.2d 217 (1991) we held that our role in reviewing the weight of the evidence is limited and the determination whether to grant a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 1991See also, Commonwealth v. Whiteman, 336 Pa.Super. 120 , 485 A.2d 459 (1984). 2 As recently as Commonwealth v. Purcell, 403 Pa.Super. 342 , 589 A.2d 217 (1991) we held that our role in reviewing the weight of the evidence is limited and the determination whether to grant a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||