186 Pa. Super. 615 - MOHR v. Plotkin’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1987
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bellettiere v. Philadelphia · Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello · Marko v. Mendelowski · Mozino v. Canuso · Muroski v. Hnath
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[o]ne who appeals from the grant of a new trial assumes a very heavy burden indeed. Before we will reverse, the appellant must be able to show that the trial court was guilty of a palpable abuse of discretion or acted on an erroneous rule of law which, in the circumstances, controlled the outcome of the case and is certified by the trial court as the sole reason for the granting of a new trial.” Mohr v. Plotkin, 186 Pa.Super. 615, 617 , 142 A.2d 414, 415 (1958), quoting Mozino v. Canuso, 384 Pa. 220, 223 , 120 A.2d 300, 301 (1956).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.