2012 Pa. Super. 89 - BRATIC v. Rubendall’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc. · McIlvaine Trucking, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, Inc. · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown · Com. v. O'BIDOS
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] petition to transfer venue should not be granted unless the defendant meets its burden of demonstrating, with detailed information on the record, that the plaintiffs chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to the defendant. [T]he defendant may meet its burden of showing that the plaintiffs choice of forum is vexatious to him by establishing with facts on the record that the plaintiffs choice of forum was designed to harass the defendant, even at some inconvenience to the plaintiff himself. Alternatively, the defendant may meet his burden by establishing on the record that trial in the chosen forum is oppressive to him; for instance, that trial in another county would provide easier access to witnesses or other sources of proof, or to the ability to conduct a view of premises involved in the dispute. But, we stress that the defendant must show more than that the chosen forum is merely inconvenient to him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In an appeal from an order transferring venue on the basis of forum non conveniens, our standard of review is “whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion.” Catagnus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 864 A.2d 1259, 1263 (Pa.Super.2004). If there exists any proper basis for the trial court’s decision to transfer venue [pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1)], the decision must stand. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but occurs only where the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record. Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, 589 Pa. 516 , 909 A.2d 1272, 1284 (2006).”
1 later decision 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.