2002 Pa. Super. 173 - Andrews v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
April 2018
most recently cited
38 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on In re Tinari · Neison v. Hines · Davis v. Mullen · 443 Pa. Super. 331 - Henery v. Shadle · 329 Pa. Super. 469 - Holland v. Zelnick
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“caused injury did not contradict a consensus among medical experts that the accident caused some injury). Dr. Maroon, the physician who performed Appellant's surgery, in his report of January 11, 2011, stated that Appellant”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“... [T]he jury must find the accident was a substantial cause of at least some injury, where both parties medical experts agree the accident caused some injury. While the jury may then find the injuries caused by the accident were incidental or non-compensable and deny damages on that basis, the jury may not simply find the accident did not “cause” an injury, where both parties’ medical experts have testified to the contrary.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, both parties’ medical experts agreed that [appellant] sustained some injury as a result of the accident. Therefore, the jury was not permitted to disregard the uncontroverted evidence of causation and find [appellee’s] negligence was not a substantial factor in causing at least some injury to Appel-lee. Had the jury found the accident caused some injury to [appellant], but declined to award damages because the jury concluded the injury was so minor as to be noncompensable, we would not have disturbed their verdict. However, the jury’s verdict that [appellant] was not “injured” in the accident goes against the weight of the competent evidenced adduced by both parties’ medical experts at 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.