2007 Pa. Super. 264 - Gbur v. Golio’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the severity of the injury; (2) whether the plaintiffs injury is manifested by objective physical evidence or whether it is only revealed by the subjective testimony of the- plaintiff ([e.g.] where the injury is manifested by broken bones, disfigurement, loss of consciousness, or other objective evidence, the courts have counted this in favor of sustaining a verdict); (3) whether, the injury will affect the. plaintiff permanently; (4) whether the plaintiff can continue with his or her employment; (5) the size of the plaintiffs out-of-pocket' expenses; and (6) the amount plaintiff demanded in the original complaint.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 50 - Tindall v. Friedman · 2017 Pa. Super. 230 - Crespo, A. v. Hughes, W.

2. “We will reverse a trial court’s decision to deny a motion for a new trial only if the trial court abused its discretion. We must review the court’s alleged mistake and determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error resulted in prejudice necessitating a new trial. If the alleged mistake concerned an error of law, we will scrutinize for legal error. Once we determine whether an error occurred, we must then determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on the request for a new trial. An abuse of discretion exists when the trial court has rendered a judgment that is jnanifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, has failed to apply the.law, or was motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 64 - Vetter, J. and Jones, A. v. Miller, A. · 2008 Pa. Super. 158 - Underwood Ex Rel. Underwood v. Wind

3. ““(a) court may waive the same specialty and board certification requirements for an expert testifying as to a standard of care if the court determines that the expert possesses sufficient training, experience, and knowledge to provide the testimony as a result of active involvement in, or full-time teaching of, medicine in the applicable subspecialty or a related field of medicine within the previous five-year period.” 40 P.S. §1303.512(e).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Volutza v. McBryan · Gbur v. Golio