2002 Pa. Super. 42 - Werner v. Plater-Zyberk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 65 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To establish a claim for abuse of process it must be shown that the defendant (1) used a legal process against the plaintiff, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed; and (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff. Abuse of process is, in essence, the use of legal process as a tactical weapon to coerce a desired result that is not the legitimate object of the process. Thus, the gravamen of this tort is the perversion of legal process to benefit someone in achieving a purpose which is not an authorized goal of the procedure in question.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hvizdak, R. v. Linn, D. · 2004 Pa. Super. 24 - Harris v. Brill

2. “¶ 7 Pennsylvania courts have recognized: When an appeal arises from an order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, which results in the dismissal of a complaint, the Superi- or Court’s scope of review is plenary. When reviewing an order granting preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, an appellate court applies the same standard employed by the trial court: all material facts set forth in the complaint as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom are admitted as true for the purposes of review. We need not consider the pleader’s legal conclusions, unwarranted inferences from facts, opinions, or argumentative allegations. The question presented by a demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Where affirmance of the trial court’s order sustaining preliminary objections would result in the dismissal of the action, we may do so only when the case is clear and free from doubt. To be clear and free from doubt that dismissal is appropriate, it must appear with certainty that the law would not permit recovery by the plaintiff upon the facts averred. Any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain the objections. We review the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion or an error of law. In the context of reviewing preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, an abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment. Rather, the trial court commits an “abuse of d”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 42 - Youndt v. First National Bank of Port Allegany · 2004 Pa. Super. 168 - Vosk v. Encompass Insurance Co.

3. “[F]ederal court decisions do not control the determinations of the Superior Court. Kleban v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 771 A.2d 39, 43 (Pa.Super.2001). Our law clearly states that, absent a United States Supreme Court pronouncement, the decisions of federal courts are not binding on Pennsylvania state courts, even when a federal question is involved.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 120 - Bochetto v. Piper Aircraft Co. · 2012 Pa. Super. 145 - Nasdaq Omx Phlx, Inc. v. Pennmont Securities