264 Pa. Super. 239 - Zagari v. Gralka’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 1993 · most notably 316 Pa. Super. 565 - Fish v. Gosnell (1983), 296 Pa. Super. 145 - Martin v. Soblotney (1982)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 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 Commonwealth v. Miller · 81 Misc. 2d 414 - Barker v. Scott · 74 Mich. App. 91 - Murray v. Ferris · 333 So. 2d 488 - Faulkner v. Allstate Insurance Co. · Tchimayan v. Toscano
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant contends that because loss of consortium is not specifically enumerated as an exception to abolition of tort liability, it is no longer a recoverable item. But statutes are not presumed to make changes in rules and principles of common law or prior existing law beyond what is expressly declared in their provisions: Commonwealth v. Miller, 469 Pa. 24 , 364 A.2d 886 (1976). And where the words of a statute are not explicit, rules of statutory construction dictate that the court (1) seek to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly, using among other indicia the former law, and (2) liberally construe the provisions of a statute so as to effect its object and promote justice, (footnote omitted) Applying these principles, we find that section 1009.301 provides for relief to a spouse for loss of consortium where a victim’s injuries meet the criteria set forth in subsection 301(a)(5).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellants contend that once a plaintiff meets the threshold requirements of section 301(a)(5), all economic and non economic damages may be pleaded regardless of any prior compensation by a plaintiff’s no-fault insurance obligor. With this contention we cannot agree. Section 301(a)(5) specifically provides that damages for non-economic detriment are recoverable if the threshold requirements are met. . . . Damage items such as medical expenses . . . are not “non-economic detriment” and therefore do not come within the ambit of section 301(a)(5). Indeed recovery for these damage items is provided for in the Act itself. Appellants, nevertheless, would have us hold that such damages are recoverable in a tort action once the threshold requirements of section 301(a)(5) are met. 16”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any person eligible for benefits described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (f) of this section other than an insurer in an action brought pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, is precluded from pleading or introducing into evidence in an action for damages against a tort-feasor those damages for which compensation was available under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) of this section without regard to any elective reductions in such coverage and whether or not such benefits are actually recoverable.””
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.