IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT
JOHN STAPAS, : No. 123 WAL 2017
:
Petitioner :
: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
: the Order of the Superior Court
v. :
:
:
GIANT EAGLE, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA :
ENTITY; GIANT EAGLE, INC., T/D/B/A :
GETGO FROM GIANT EAGLE,A :
PENNSYLVANIA ENTITY; GIANT EAGLE :
INC., T/D/B/A SOUTHSIDE GETGO, A :
PENNSYLVANIA ENTITY; NADEEN :
MCSHANE, AN INDIVIDUAL; GETGO :
PARTNERS SOUTH, A PENNSYLVANIA :
ENTITY; GETGO PARTNERS SOUTH- :
MARYLAND, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA :
ENTITY; AND GETGO HOLDINGS, LLP, :
A PENNSYLVANIA ENTITY, :
:
Respondents :
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of
Appeal is GRANTED The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
a. Does the Superior Court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s
finding of waiver, despite Giant Eagle’s failure to object to
flawed jury instructions, flawed verdict slip and/or the
problematic verdict, all of which contributed to the error
complained of on appeal, conflict with this Court’s holding in
Straub v. Cherne Indus., 583 Pa. 608, 880 A.2d 561 (2005),
a case not considered by the Superior Court?
b. Does the Superior Court’s decision to excuse Giant Eagle’s
failures to object to flawed jury instructions, flawed verdict
slip and/or a problematic verdict, merely because the appeal
is styled as a “challenge to the weight of the evidence,”
conflict with the timely objection requirement of Dilliplaine v.
Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974)?
[123 WAL 2017] - 2