2000 Pa. Super. 22 - Collins v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 2002 Pa. Super. 251 - Yacoub v. Lehigh Valley Medical Associates, P.C. (2002), 2000 Pa. Super. 48 - Gunn v. Grossman (2000)
35 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 415 Pa. Super. 41 - Primavera v. Celotex Corp. · 326 Pa. Super. 319 - Kemp v. Qualls · Travellers Insurance v. Heppenstall Co. · 1999 Pa. Super. 37 - Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., Inc. · 344 Pa. Super. 218 - Bessemer Stores, Inc. v. Reed Shaw Stenhouse, Inc.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our scope of review in assessing a trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is whether the trial court clearly and palpably abused its discretion or committed an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case. Where the motion for a new trial is based upon the sufficiency of the jury charge, we must examine the charge in its entirety against the background of the evidence to determine whether error was committed. If an appellate court concludes that the charge was erroneous, a new trial will be granted only if the jury charge might have prejudiced appellant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen improperly admitted testimony may have affected a verdict, the only correct remedy is the grant of a new trial.”
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.