2004 Pa. Super. 464 - Carrozza v. Greenbaum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “we must determine whether there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict. We will review all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict-winner and will give that party the benefit of every reasonable inference arising from- that evidence while rejecting all unfavorable testimony and inferences. Judgment n.o.v. may be entered where: (1) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and/or (2) the evidence is such that no two reasonable minds could disagree that the verdict should have been rendered for the moving party. Our scope of review is plenary concerning any questions of law.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grossi v. Travelers Personal Insurance Co. · 2013 Pa. Super. 34 - Renna v. Schadt

2. “In Hamil v. Bashline, our Supreme Court adopted' the relaxed “increased-risk-of-harm” standard for use in certain medical malpractice claims. [ 481 Pa. 256 ], 392 A.2d 1280, 1288 (Pa.1978). In adopting this principle, the Hamil Court reasoned: In light of our interpretation of [subsection 323(a),[ 16 ] it follows that where medical causation is a factor in a case coming within that Section,[ 17 ] it is not necessary that the plaintiff introduce medical evidence in addition to that already adduced to prove defendant’s conduct increased the risk of harm— to establish that the negligence asserted resulted in plaintiffs injury. Rather, once the jury is apprised of the likelihood that defendant’s conduct resulted in plaintiffs harm, [subsection 323(a) ] leaves to the jury, and not the medical expert, the task of balancing probabilities. Hamil, 392 A.2d at 1288 . Subsequently, our high court explained: An example of this type of case is a failure of a physician to timely diagnose breast cancer. Although timely detection of breast cancer may well reduce the likelihood that the patient will have a terminal result, even with timely detection and optimal treatment, a certain percentage of patients unfortunately will succumb to the disease. This statistical factor, however, does not preclude a plaintiff from prevailing in a lawsuit. Rather, once there is testimony that there was a failure to detect the cancer in a timely fashion, and such failure increased the risk that the woman would ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 177 - K.H. v. Kumar, S., M.D

3. “The Act requires every insurer, as a condition of doing business in the Commonwealth, to participate in the Association. In this manner, the risk of loss due to the insolvency of any one insurer is spread out over all member insurance companies and their policyholders. In effect, every time PPCIGA pays a claim, every member insurance company is paying part of the claim. Therefore, Section 991.1817 aims to lessen the financial burden on the insurance industry.... Thus, contrary to PPCIGA’s position in this case, both the Act and interpretative caselaw evidences clear concern for the financial burden on insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carrozza v. Greenbaum