212 Pa. Super. 58 - Schacter v. Albert’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
233 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 233 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co. (1979), 281 Pa. Super. 560 - Yaindl v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Standard Pump-Aldrich Division (1980)
233 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 Cardillo v. United States · Chandler v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. · S. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. Ohio Turnpike Commission · Fiumara v. Texaco, Inc. · Pittsburgh Hotels Ass'n v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh
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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On motion for summary judgment the Court must consider the entire setting of the case and all the papers that are included in the record... One who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact... The Court must consider both the record actually presented and the record potentially possible at the time of trial... A hearing on a motion for summary judgment is not a trial on the merits, and the Court on such motion should not attempt to resolve conflicting contentions of fact... The court is to accept as true all well pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s pleadings, as well as the admissions on file, giving to the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom... The record must be examined in the light most favorable to the non-moving party____ In passing upon a motion for summary judgment it is no part of the court’s function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment.... A party should not be deprived of an adequate opportunity to fully develop (sic) his case by witnesses and a trial, when the issues involved make such procedure the appropriate one____ It is often the case that although the basic facts are not in dispute, the parties in good faith may nevertheless disagree about the inferences”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““On motion for summary judgment the court must consider the entire setting of the case and all the papers that are included in the record. . . . One who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. . . . The court must consider both the record actually presented and the record potentially possible at the time of trial. ... A hearing on a motion for summary judgment.is not a trial on the merits, and the court on such motion should not attempt to resolve conflicting contentions of fact, (citations omitted). ... A party should not be deprived of an adequate opportunity to fully develop his case by witnesses and a trial, when the issues involved make such procedure the appropriate one. ... It is often the case that although the basic facts are not in dispute, the'parties in good faith may nevertheless disagree about the inferences to be drawn from these facts, what the intention of the parties was as shown by the facts. .. . Under such circumstances the case is not one to be decided by the trial judge on a motion for summary judgment.” Schacter, supra.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment on the pleadings and any depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file and supporting affidavits. (b) The adverse party, prior to the day of hearing, may serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issues of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.”
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.