2000 Pa. Super. 104 - Robinson v. Upole’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The ‘serious impairment of body function’ threshold contains two inquiries: “(a) What body function, if any, was impaired because of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident? “(b) Was the impairment of the body function serious? The focus of these inquiries is not on the injuries themselves, but on how the injuries affected a particular body function. Generally medical testimony will be needed to establish the existence, extent, and permanency of the impairment.... In determining whether the impairment was serious, several factors should be considered: the extent of the impairment, the length of time the impairment lasted, the treatment required to correct the impairment, and any other relevant factors. An impairment need not be permanent to be serious.” Washington, 553 Pa. at 448 , 719 A.2d at 740, citing DiFranco v. Pickard, 427 Mich. 32 , 398 N.W.2d 896, 901 (1986).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sekol v. Albrecht · Egan v. Stroudsburg School District

2. “Our standard of review in reversing an order denying a remittitur by a trial court is confined to determining whether there was an abuse of discretion or an error of law committed in such denial. The grant or refusal of a new trial because of the excessiveness of the verdict is within the discretion of the trial court. This court will not find a verdict excessive unless it is so grossly excessive as to shock our sense of justice. We begin with the premise that large verdicts are not necessarily excessive verdicts. Each case is unique and dependent on its own special circumstances and a court should apply only those factors which it finds to be relevant in determining whether or not the verdict is excessive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 5 - Graham v. Campo

3. “An order granting JNOV is appropriate if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and/or the evidence presented at trial was such that no two reasonable minds could disagree that the verdict would be in favor of the movant. With the former, the court is to review the record and determine whether, even with all factual inferences decided adversely to the movant, the law nonetheless requires a verdict in its favor. With the latter, the court reviews the evidentiary record and concludes that the evidence was such that a verdict for the movant was beyond peradventure.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 40 - Whittington v. Episcopal Hospital