2002 Pa. Super. 326 - Debbs v. Chrysler Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc. (2004), Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co. (2012)
4 federal appellate · 40 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 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts · Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co. · Gibbs v. Ernst · Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co. · Weinberg v. Sun Co., 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) There are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4) The representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the class under the criteria set forth in [Pa. R. Civ. R] 1709; and (5) A class action provides a fair and efficient method for adjudication of the controversy under the criteria set forth in [Pa. R. Civ. R] 1708. 4”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Class certification is a mixed question of law and fact. Courts should not dispose of class issues such as numerosity and typicality based on the perceived adequacy or inadequacy of the underlying merits of the claim. On the other hand, courts may need to examine the elements of the underlying cause of action in order to dispose of class issues properly. [See Weinberg v. Sun Co., 565 Pa. 612, 618 , 777 A.2d 442, 446 (2001)] (because false advertising claims under the UTPCPL require individualized proof of reliance, causation, and proof of loss, individual claims predominated over common issues; therefore, “the certification requirements of commonality and numerosity were not met”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) a representation; (2) which is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance.”
2 later decisions 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.