2014 Pa. Super. 20 - Roth v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... the matter before us requires that we interpret a Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure. This presents a question of law, for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Therefore, we are not constrained by the interpretation provided by the trial court. We must then analyze the trial court’s [grant or] denial of delay damages pursuant to Rule 238, which we review for an abuse of discretion. ... When interpreting a Rule of Civil Procedure, the goal “is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Supreme Court.” Pa.R.C.P. 127(a). In so doing, we must, to the extent possible, “give effect to all [of the rule’s] provisions. When the words of a rule are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Pa.R.C.P. 127(b)....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 50 - Tillery, S. v. The Children's Hospital of Phila.

2. “Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 provides, in pertinent part: At. the request of the plaintiff in a civil action seeking monetary relief for bodily injury ... damages for delay shall be added to the amount of compensatory damages awarded against each defendant ... found to be liable to the plaintiff in the verdict of a jury ... and shall become part of the verdict, decision or award.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 50 - Tillery, S. v. The Children's Hospital of Phila.