2001 Pa. Super. 334 - Hall v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the appellate court must examine the decision of the trial court to determine whether it agrees that a mistake was or was not made. In doing so, ... the appellate court must apply the appropriate standard of review. If the alleged mistake involved an error of law, the appellate court must scrutinize for legal error. If the alleged mistake at trial involved a discretionary act, the appellate court must review for an abuse of discretion.... [A] trial court abuses its discretion by rendering a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, or has failed to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will. If the appellate court agrees with the trial court’s determination that there were no prejudicial mistakes at trial, then a decision by the trial court to deny a new trial must stand and we need not reach the second prong of the analysis. If the appellate court discerns that a mistake was made at trial, however, it must analyze whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on the motion for a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 490 - Hartdegen v. Berger

2. “if an actor's conduct was malicious, wanton, willful, oppressive, or exhibited a reckless indifference to the rights of others”) (emphasis added); Johnson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 698 A.2d 631, 639 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) (stating the same); McDaniel v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 367 Pa.Super. 600 , 533 A.2d 436, 447 (1987) (permitting punitive damages for conduct that was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Corcoran v. McCabe (In re McCabe)

3. “(2) are specified in the motion. The motion shall state how the grounds were asserted in pre-trial proceedings or at trial. Grounds not specified are deemed waived unless leave is granted upon cause shown to specify additional grounds.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hinkson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation