isolated error in Pennsylvania

2001In Adamson v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 49 Pa. Commw. 54 , 410 A.2d 392 (1980), the Superior Court thoroughly measured the proposed class against the class requirements and, based on the defendant’s preliminary objections, concluded that the plaintiff’s action would not benefit the class.

2001In Adamson v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 49 Pa. Commw. 54 , 410 A.2d 392 (1980), the Superior Court thoroughly measured the proposed class against the class requirements and, based on the defendant’s preliminary objections, concluded that the plaintiff’s action would not benefit the class.

2021While Appellant argues that the isolated factors of an open - 15 - J-A18010-21 door and bystanders overhearing a limited and irrelevant portion of the conversation are of such greater significance as to outweigh all other circumstances and entitle him to a new trial, we find these two factors, amongst other circumstances of this case, are not of such an imperative nature in and of themselves as to require a new trial “so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.” Morales, supra. The trial court, sitting as fact-finder, was free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.

2020Koehler, 36 A.3d at 156 ; Keaton, 45 A.3d at 1061 .

2020Koehler, 36 A.3d at 156 ; Keaton, 45 A.3d at 1061 .

2012Through that analysis, the trial court was to determine whether the forfeiture sought by the prosecution was grossly disprOportional to the gravity of the offense committed. 54 44 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d at 400-03 .

1989Our Supreme Court in Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 417 Pa. 581 , 209 A.2d 289 (1965) made some observations regarding erroneous instructions which are equally applicable here, viz.: “ ‘Where an erroneous instruction consists of a palpable misstatement of the law, it is not cured by a conflicting or contradictory one which correctly states the law on the point involved, for the jury, assuming, as is their duty, that the instructions are all correct, may as readily have followed the incorrect as the correct one and it is impossible to know which they accepted, [citing cases].

1989Our Supreme Court in Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 417 Pa. 581 , 209 A.2d 289 (1965) made some observations regarding erroneous instructions which are equally applicable here, viz.: “ ‘Where an erroneous instruction consists of a palpable misstatement of the law, it is not cured by a conflicting or contradictory one which correctly states the law on the point involved, for the jury, assuming, as is their duty, that the instructions are all correct, may as readily have followed the incorrect as the correct one and it is impossible to know which they accepted, [citing cases].

1905With like effect we have Schlegel v. Herbein, 174 Pa. 504 , where it is said: “ B-ut where a deed is inartificially drawn, too much stress is not to be laid upon the terms employed, or, as is evidenced in the decision of Ivory v. Burns, 56 Pa. 300 , upon the position of any clause indicative of the intention of the parties, the cardinal rule being that the latter is to be effectuated, if lawful, by construing the instrument as a whole and giving force to every part of it.” Vide also Wager v. Wager, 1 S. & R. 374; Means v. Church. 3 W. & S. 303 ; Phillips’s Appeal, 93 Pa. 45 ; Paschall v. Passm

1905With like effect we have Schlegel v. Herbein, 174 Pa. 504 , where it is said: “ B-ut where a deed is inartificially drawn, too much stress is not to be laid upon the terms employed, or, as is evidenced in the decision of Ivory v. Burns, 56 Pa. 300 , upon the position of any clause indicative of the intention of the parties, the cardinal rule being that the latter is to be effectuated, if lawful, by construing the instrument as a whole and giving force to every part of it.” Vide also Wager v. Wager, 1 S. & R. 374; Means v. Church. 3 W. & S. 303 ; Phillips’s Appeal, 93 Pa. 45 ; Paschall v. Passm

1905With like effect we have Schlegel v. Herbein, 174 Pa. 504 , where it is said: “ B-ut where a deed is inartificially drawn, too much stress is not to be laid upon the terms employed, or, as is evidenced in the decision of Ivory v. Burns, 56 Pa. 300 , upon the position of any clause indicative of the intention of the parties, the cardinal rule being that the latter is to be effectuated, if lawful, by construing the instrument as a whole and giving force to every part of it.” Vide also Wager v. Wager, 1 S. & R. 374; Means v. Church. 3 W. & S. 303 ; Phillips’s Appeal, 93 Pa. 45 ; Paschall v. Passm

1905With like effect we have Schlegel v. Herbein, 174 Pa. 504 , where it is said: “ B-ut where a deed is inartificially drawn, too much stress is not to be laid upon the terms employed, or, as is evidenced in the decision of Ivory v. Burns, 56 Pa. 300 , upon the position of any clause indicative of the intention of the parties, the cardinal rule being that the latter is to be effectuated, if lawful, by construing the instrument as a whole and giving force to every part of it.” Vide also Wager v. Wager, 1 S. & R. 374; Means v. Church. 3 W. & S. 303 ; Phillips’s Appeal, 93 Pa. 45 ; Paschall v. Passm

1905With like effect we have Schlegel v. Herbein, 174 Pa. 504 , where it is said: “ B-ut where a deed is inartificially drawn, too much stress is not to be laid upon the terms employed, or, as is evidenced in the decision of Ivory v. Burns, 56 Pa. 300 , upon the position of any clause indicative of the intention of the parties, the cardinal rule being that the latter is to be effectuated, if lawful, by construing the instrument as a whole and giving force to every part of it.” Vide also Wager v. Wager, 1 S. & R. 374; Means v. Church. 3 W. & S. 303 ; Phillips’s Appeal, 93 Pa. 45 ; Paschall v. Passm