259 Pa. Super. 332 - Robert v. Chodoff’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 298 Pa. Super. 92 - Pratt v. Stein (1982), 342 Pa. Super. 89 - Lokay v. Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, Inc. (1985)
1 district · 35 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 Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co. · Skoda v. West Penn Power Co. · McConnell v. Williams · Ragan v. Steen · Donaldson v. Maffucci
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the severity of the injury, (2) whether plaintiff's injury is manifested by objective physical evidence instead of merely the subjective testimony of the plaintiff, (3) whether the injury will effect the plaintiff permanently, (4) whether the plaintiff can continue with his employment, (5) the size of plaintiff's out-of-pocket expenses, and (6) the amount plaintiff demanded in the original complaint.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellate courts are properly reluctant to interfere with jury verdicts in personal injury cases, which verdicts are supported by the opinion and approval of the trial judge and the court en banc. Roadman v. Bellone, 379 Pa. 483 , 108 A.2d 754 (1954). The granting or refusal of a new trial because of excessiveness is peculiarly within the discretion of the court below and we will not interfere, absent a clear abuse of discretion. Hall v. George, 403 Pa. 563 , 170 A.2d 367 (1961). We will not hold that a verdict is excessive unless it is ‘so grossly excessive as to shock our sense of. justice.’ Kane v. Scranton Transit Co., 372 Pa. 496 , 94 A.2d 560 (1963) ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While we agree with this proposition, see Donaldson v. Maffuci, 397 Pa. 548 , 156 A.2d 835 (1959); Ragan v. Steen, [ 229 Pa.Super. 515, 522 , 331 A.2d 724 (1974) ], we do not believe that the omission of this charge in the instant case amounts to reversible error. The lower court’s charge repeatedly emphasized that appellee had the burden of proving appellant’s specific acts of negligence caused appellee’s brain damage; implicit in these instructions is the converse proposition that a finding of negligence cannot be grounded upon the ultimate result of brain damage alone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.