2003 Pa. Super. 40 - Kennedy v. Sell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A sufficiency analysis ... must begin by accepting the credibility and reliability of all evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner regardless of whether the appellant thinks that the evidence was believable. Alternatively, a claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence concedes that the evidence presented by the verdict winner was sufficient to satisfy the elements of the causé of action but contends that the evidence was unreliable and untrustworthy to such a degree that a verdict based upon it would shock one’s sense of justice, and, therefore, a new trial would be necessary to cure the injustice. Further, under the standard of review for challenges to the weight of the evidence, [the] [c]ourt is under no obligation to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. S. Chin v. New Flyer of America, Inc. and SEPTA

2. “that the accident was not a substantial factor”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 337 - Smith v. Putter