Siegal v. Stefanyszyn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that party preserved challenge to improper comment, despite not objecting to trial court’s curative instruction, by thereafter seeking a ruling on motion for a new trial
• finding curative instruction was not sufficient to cure harm because it did not convey what was true to the jury
• “[C]ounsel’s argument was clearly improper, as it conveyed to the jury something that counsel knew to be untrue, i.e., that Dr. Shore’s opinion was not favorable to appellants’ case.”
• in deciding to grant new trial, Court noted that it “was forced to conclude that . . . the [court’s] instruction did not accurately convey to the jury what was true. . . and the thrust of the instruction was not directed toward that damage done[.]”
• in deciding to grant new trial, Court noted that it “was forced to conclude that . . . the [court’s] instruction did not accurately convey to the jury what was true. . . and the thrust of the instruction was not directed toward that damage done[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).