Gallagher v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

861 A.2d 257
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gallagher v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Read the opinion of the Court — 584 Pa. 362
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 6, 2004·Published

Opinion

[258]*258 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby granted, limited to the following issue:

Applying the standards for appellate review set forth in Harman v. Borah, 562 Pa. 455, 756 A.2d 1116 (2000), and considering the scope of a trial court’s discretion under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, did the Superior Court err in reversing the trial court’s denial of Gallagher’s motion for a new trial based on its conclusion that the collateral source rule had been violated and without consideration of actual prejudice, when the evidence of payments from a collateral source was relevant to the jury’s determination as to which of two defendants was Gallagher’s employer and the trial court gave a cautionary instruction to the jury that the evidence should be used only for that limited purpose.

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

Gallagher v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 861 A.2d 257 (Pa. 2004).

861 A.2d 257 (Gallagher v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. Borah
756 A.2d 1116 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2000)