2017 Pa. Super. 77 - Nicholas, J. v. Hofmann, D.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Upon appeal of a non-jury trial verdict, we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner and will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact lack the support of competent evidence or its findings are premised on an error of law. When this Court reviews the findings of the trial judge, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the victorious party below and all evidence and proper inferences favorable to that party must be taken as true and all unfavorable inferences rejected. The court's findings are especially binding on appeal, where they are based upon the credibility of the witnesses, unless it appears that the court abused its discretion or that the court's findings lack evidentiary support or that the court capriciously disbelieved the evidence. It is inappropriate for an appellate court to make factual determinations in the face of conflicting evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Medlock v. Chilmark Home Inspections, LLC · Phelps, N. v. Caperoon, L.

2. “■ The Rules of Civil Procedure governing foreclosure actions were drafted by our Supreme Court and adopted in 1949, but they have a statutory basis dating back to 1705. See Kenneth E. Gray, Definition; conformity to civil action, in 15 West’s Pennsylvania Practice, § 2:1 (Thomson Reuters, 3d ed., Dec. 2016 Update). Thus, despite its current embodiment in the Rules, the procedure in connection with the foreclosure of mortgages has been held to be "purely statutory," so that its requirements must be stringently followed. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Lebanon v. Noble, 338 Pa.Super. 177 , 487 A.2d 912, 915 (1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 110 - U.S. Bank National Ass'n Ex Rel. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency v. Watters

3. “[wjhen the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties is to be ascertained from the document itself.” Nicholas v. Hofmann, 158 A.3d 675, 693 (Pa. Super. 2017). The Agreement unambiguously states that it covers all claims arising out of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Del Ciotto v. Pennsylvania Hospital of the University of Penn Health System