2006 Pa. Super. 2 - Varner v. Classic Communities Corp.’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. “(1) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm, or (2) the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard, or (3)expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 231 - Bourne v. Temple University Hospital · 2008 Pa. Super. 143 - Dental Care Associates, Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc.

2. “(a) A complaint shall identify each defendant against whom the plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim. (b) A defendant may raise by preliminary objections the failure of the complaint to comply with subdivision (a) of this rule. Note: The filing of preliminary objections raising failure of a pleading to conform to rule of court is the procedure for bringing before the court the issue whether the complaint is asserting a professional liability claim.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 152 - French v. Commonwealth Associates, Inc. · 2007 Pa. Super. 57 - Gondek v. Bio-Medical Applications of Pennsylvania, Inc.

3. “The prothonotary, on praecipe of the defendant, shall enter a judgment of non pros against the plaintiff for failure to file a certificate of merit within the required time provided that there is no pending timely filed motion seeking to extend the time to file the certificate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Merlini Ex Rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority · 2007 Pa. Super. 274 - Merlini Ex Rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority