Cohen v. Weinreich and Weinreich

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Cohen v. Weinreich and Weinreich

100 Pa. Super. 83, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 24

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 16, 1930

DocketAppeal 337

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Pa. Super. 83 (Cohen v. Weinreich and Weinreich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Weinreich and Weinreich, 100 Pa. Super. 83, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 24 (Pa. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It will serve no good purpose to discuss at length the questions involved in the present appeal.

The assignments are directed to the refusal of the court to withdraw a juror after the attorney for the plaintiff in his second speech to the jury stated, “The attorney for the defendants has a great deal of practise in trying this hind of cases and this kind of claims.” The trial judge did not take the view that any aspersion on the character of the attorney who was the subject of the remark was intended. We think there was more importance attached to the remark than is justified. The impropriety of the remark is not so obvious as to require us to interfere in a matter which we consider, in this case, was within the discretion of the lower court.

The other assignment is directed to a colloquy between the trial judge and plaintiff’s attorney. There is no merit in it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

It will serve no good purpose to discuss at length the questions involved in the present appeal.

The assignments are directed to the refusal of the court to withdraw a juror after the attorney for the plaintiff in his second speech to the jury stated, “The attorney for the defendants has a great deal of practise in trying this hind of cases and this kind of claims.” The trial judge did not take the view that any aspersion on the character of the attorney who was the subject of the remark was intended. We think there was more importance attached to the remark than is justified. The impropriety of the remark is not so obvious as to require us to interfere in a matter which we consider, in this case, was within the discretion of the lower court.

The other assignment is directed to a colloquy between the trial judge and plaintiff’s attorney. There is no merit in it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Pa. Super. 83, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-weinreich-and-weinreich-pasuperct-1930.