Case Name: John STAPAS, Petitioner 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
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-09-26
Citations: 171 A.3d 1283
Docket Number: No. 123 WAL 2017
Parties: John STAPAS, Petitioner 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
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 171
Pages: 1283–1284

Head Matter:
John STAPAS, Petitioner 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
No. 123 WAL 2017
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
September 26, 2017

Opinion:
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 proble matic 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)?