Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the prohibition on ex parte communications prevents improper influence and errors by ensuring both counsel participate
• requiring an assessment of prejudice resulting from unauthorized contact with the jury as consistent with the trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial where justice so requires
• “The impartiality and integrity of the jury are critical to the properly functioning [sic] of our system. Indeed, the jury is its keystone.”
• “[T]he trial court is not authorized to grant a new trial unless prejudice to the moving party was likely from the contact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-12-31· cited 8×
• Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-04-11