Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2016 Pa. Super. 209 - WFIC, LLC v. LaBarre, D.

2016 Pa. Super. 209 - WFIC, LLC v. LaBarre, D.’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 422 Pa. Super. 262 - Styer v. Hugo · 336 Pa. Super. 636 - Commonwealth v. Smith · Belfonte v. Miller · Mager v. Bultena · 2014 Pa. Super. 125 - Thompson v. Ginkel

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

  1. “A reviewing court may disturb the order of the trial court only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. As with all questions of law, our review is plenary. In evaluating the trial court’s decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered. Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which it bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Lastly, we will view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.”
    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.