259 Pa. Super. 112 - Osterritter v. Holl’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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Smith v. Clark, 411 Pa. 142 , 190 A.2d 441 (1963), the Supreme Court stated, “It is basic to a fair trial that the issues be clearly defined for a jury’s intelligent understanding and that in determining if prejudicial error is present, the entire charge must be considered and its general effect noted ... A trial judge may properly define all pertinent questions of law, but if he fails to clarify the issues and the application of the law to the facts, a fair trial is not present.” id., 411 Pa. at 147, 190 A.2d at 443 . The charge should be clear and precise and so couched as not to confuse the jury. Cohen v. Kalodner, 236 Pa.Super. 124 , 345 A.2d 235 (1975); Ryan v. Furey, 225 Pa.Super. 294 , 303 A.2d 221 (1973); Acquaviva v. Hartman, 203 Pa.Super. 505 , 201 A.2d 239 (1964). Osterritter v. Holl, 259 Pa.Super. 112, 115-116 , 393 A.2d 742, 744 (1978).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 280 Pa. Super. 512 - Brown v. Tinneny

2. “contradictory instructions are not always reversible error. An erroneous statement of law in one portion of the charge can be rendered harmless by a subsequent correct statement of the same principles if the jury is clearly instructed that the latter statement and not the earlier one is the correct statement of the principle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 342 Pa. Super. 594 - Dunlap v. Larkin