2009 Pa. Super. 50 - Tindall v. Friedman’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Maloney v. VALLEY MEDICAL FACILITIES, INC. (2009), 2009 Pa. Super. 119 - Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. (2009)
30 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 Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Insurance · Thompson v. City of Philadelphia · Commonwealth v. Reed · Stewart v. Motts · 263 Pa. Super. 8 - Kravinsky v. Glover
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our standard of review in reversing an order denying a remittitur by a trial court is confined to determining whether there was an abuse of discretion or an error of law committed in such denial. [[Image here]] The grant or refusal of a new trial because of the excessiveness of the verdict is within the discretion of the trial court. This [C]ourt will not find a verdict excessive unless it is so grossly excessive as to shock our sense of justice. We begin with the premise that large verdicts are not necessarily excessive verdicts, Each case is unique and dependent on its own special circumstances and a court should apply only those factors which it finds to be relevant in determining whether or not the verdict is excessive.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the trial court. Failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental error will result in waiver of that issue. On appeal the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed could have been corrected. In this jurisdiction one must object to errors, improprieties or irregularities at the earliest possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the jurist hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Stewart v. Motts, 539 Pa. 596 , 654 A.2d 535 (1995). It is only when”
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.