2004 Pa. Super. 197 - Carpinet v. Mitchell’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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rule 223.3. Conduct of the Trial. Actions for Bodily Injury or Death. Jury Instructions on Noneconomic Loss In any action for bodily injury or death in which a plaintiff has raised a claim for a damage award for noneco-nomic loss that is viable under applicable substantive law, the court shall give the following instructions to the jury. The plaintiff has made a claim for a damage award for past and for future noneconomic loss. There are four items that make up a damage award for noneconomic loss, both past and future: (1) pain and suffering; (2) embarrassment and humiliation; (3) loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life; and (4) disfigurement. The first item to be considered in the plaintiffs claims for damage awards for past noneconomic loss and for future noneconomic loss is pain and suffering. You are instructed that plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for all physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and distress that you find (he)(she) has endured from the time of the injury until today and that plaintiff is also entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for all physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and distress you find (he)(she) will endure in the future as a result of (his)(her) injuries. The second item that goes to make up noneconomic loss is embarrassment and humiliation. Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such embarrassment and humiliation as you believe (he)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 245 - McManamon v. Washko

2. “This [C]ourt will not reverse a trial court’s decision regarding the grant or refusal of a new trial absent an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Where an appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying a new trial due to an allegedly objectionable jury charge, a timely and specific objection must be made to preserve [this] elaim[.] * * * In reviewing a claim regarding error with respect to a specific jury charge, we must view the charge in its entirety taking into consideration all the evidence of record ánd determine whether or not error Was committed and, if so, whether that error was prejudicial to the complaining party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 103 - American Future System, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Eastern Pennsylvania

3. “[W]e have said many times that 'urging a multitude of errors on appeal is generally seen as bad appellate strategy because the weaker or non-meritorious issues tend to , detract from the more meaningful issues which may support a finding of reversible error.” Carpinet v. Mitchell, 853 A.2d 366, 369 (Pa.Super.2004). We remind Freeman’s counsel that'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 252 - Commonwealth v. Freeman