243 Pa. Super. 371 - Havens v. Tonner’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Clifton F. Hoffman v. Sterling Drug, Inc., a Corporation and Winthrop Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation and Division of Sterling Drug, Inc. Clifton F. Hoffman v. Sterling Drug, Inc., a Corporation and Winthrop Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation and Division of Sterling Drug, Inc. · Frankel v. Heym · Hargrove v. Frommeyer & Co. · 321 F. Supp. 1331 - Frankel v. United States · James Magill, Administrator of the Estate of Frank W. Magill, Jr., Deceased v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Murphy, Inc
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“simply a substitute for inflation and equally speculative and inadmissible in a calculation of future earnings,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Steadily rising wage rates over the next twenty years, whatever the cause, are simply one face of the coin of inflation. It may be that inflation will become so much an established pattern of our economy that it should be recognized in estimating loss of future earnings. Certainly the erratic behavior of the economy over the past half dozen years, plagued by war and other unusual circumstances, is not a sufficient demonstration that inflation at any predictable rate will continue for another twenty years. Furthermore, even if inflation is a part of the pattern of the future, one certain consequence is that interest rates on money will reflect that fact. Consequently, a sum representing the present worth of future earnings will earn more in dollars in an inflationary period than would otherwise be the case. This may not wholly compensate for the effect of inflation over the next twenty years. We view the “productivity factor” as simply a substitute for inflation and equally speculative and inadmissible in a calculation of future earnings.”
2 later decisions 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.