2007 Pa. Super. 224 - Gorman v. Costello’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2023
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc. · Lockhart v. List · 2006 Pa. Super. 245 - McManamon v. Washko · Jeter v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. · 2004 Pa. Super. 197 - Carpinet v. Mitchell
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Error in a charge is sufficient ground for a new trial if the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse rather than clarify a material issue. A charge will be found adequate unless the issues are not made clear to the jury or the jury was palpably misled by what the trial judge said or unless there is an omission in the charge which amounts to a fundamental error.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order for the plaintiff to recover in this case, the defendant’s [negligence] [reckless] [intentional] conduct must have been a factual cause in bringing about harm. Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct. To be a factual cause, the conduct must have been an actual, real factor in causing the harm, even if the result is unusual or unexpected. A factual cause cannot be an imaginary or fanciful factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the harm. To be a factual cause, the defendant’s conduct need not be the only factual cause. The fact that some other causes concur with the negligence of the defendant in producing an injury does not relieve the defendant from liability as long as [his] [her] own negligence is a factual cause of the injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct. An act is a factual cause of an outcome it, in the absence of the act, the outcome would not have occurred.”
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.