Remy v. Michael D'S Carpet Outlets

How courts have described this case

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

• noting, among other things, that the lease did not require the landlord to purchase fire insurance for the protection of the tenant, and determining that the tenant was not an implied co-insured
• plaintiff’s comparative negligence is inadmissible in products liability suit, despite passage of Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act
• plaintiff's comparative negligence is inadmissible in products liability suit, despite passage of Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act
• “The provisions of the lease . . . did not require Kimco, the landlord, to purchase fire insurance for the protection of Michael D’s, the tenant.”
• plaintiff's comparative negligence is inadmissible in product liability action
• “The rebuttal testimony was offered to discredit [appellant’s] expert witnesses, and although it was at times repetitive of prior testimony given by the same witness [in appellee’s case in chief], there is therein no basis for awarding a new trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).