Pennsylvania Supreme Court oral arguments over a nixed $2.1 million jury award to a man who was shot outside of a Pittsburgh convenience store focused heavily on whether a defendant should be able to challenge a lump sum verdict based on a breakdown of damages the attorneys were never supposed to be privy to.

In Stapas v. Giant Eagle, the justices granted allocatur to plaintiff John Stapas, who was disabled as a result of the shooting, but denied another allocatur petition filed by the defendant, Giant Eagle, corporate owner of the GetGo convenience store chain.

This content has been archived.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]