2006 Pa. Super. 64 - Tyco Electronics Corp. v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 2005 Pa. Super. 124 - Sullivan v. Chartwell Investment Partners, LP · Com. v. Green · In Re TT · 71 F. Supp. 2d 455 - Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Inc. · 171 Pa. Super. 431 - Cohen v. Marian
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] reviewing court may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. In evaluating the trial court’s decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule, Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2[]. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered. We will view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.