The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion in limine where the opposing party failed to supply a reply brief to the motion, where the trial court's order required the parties to submit briefs within 10 days of service. Judgment affirmed.
August 26, 2016 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Purchase and Sale of Motor Vehicle • Breach • Motion in Limine • Evidence Produced After Discovery Deadline • Directed Verdict
Oakley v. Clark, PICS Case No. 16-1054 (Pa. Super. Aug. 12, 2016) (memorandum) Platt, J. (10 pages).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a motion in limine where the opposing party failed to supply a reply brief to the motion, where the trial court’s order required the parties to submit briefs within 10 days of service. Judgment affirmed.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
The New Jersey State Commission of Investigation (SCI) is seeking an experienced and visionary leader to serve as its next Executive Directo...
We are a boutique firm specializing the area of real estate law and handling both litigation and transactional matters. We are seeking an as...
Rabb, Hamill, P.A, located in Woodbridge, NJ, seeks an experienced NJ licensed Personal Injury Trial attorney. The successful candidate wi...
