2005 Pa. Super. 367 - Warren v. Folk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] statute does not operate `retrospectively' merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute's enactment, or upsets expectations based in prior law.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wexler v. Hecht · 2007 Pa. Super. 22 - In the Interest of K.A.P.

2. “Judge Beck reasoned that a rule or statute does not operate retrospectively merely because it is applied in a case that arises from conduct that preceded its promulgation or alters expectations deriving from prior laws. Rather, she indicated, “the court must ask whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Judge Beck observed that this Court has expressly considered the issue of retroactivity in terms of whether or not the rule or statute in question affects vested rights, or rights that “so completely and definitely belong to a person that [they] cannot be impaired or taken away without the person’s consent.” She reasoned that Rule 1042.3 merely added a procedural requirement for going forward with a suit, designed to provide some assurance that the claims are based on arguably meritorious assertions, and did not infringe on any vested right. (“To be a retroactive application to appellant’s suit, Rule 1042.3 would have to give the alleged incidents of malpractice a new legal effect — i.e., one that is different from their legal effect under the rules existing at the time the incidents occurred. This is not the case.”)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miegoc v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board

3. “[T]he interpretation and application of a Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure presents a question of law.... Accordingly, ... our standard of review is de novo , and our scope of review is plenary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kelly Systems v. Fiore, L. v. OGP Architects