285 Pa. Super. 57 - Bachman v. Artinger’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably 362 Pa. Super. 484 - Garcia v. Community Legal Services Corp. (1987), 330 Pa. Super. 523 - Robert Wooler Co. v. Fidelity Bank (1984)
29 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 Linkletter v. Walker · Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co. · 229 Pa. Super. 333 - BAKER v. RANGOS · Penneys v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Shane v. Hoffmann
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Testimony as to an out of court statement, written or oral, is not hearsay if offered to prove, not that the content of the statement was true, but that the statement was made: Commonwealth v. Samuels, 235 Pa. Superior Ct. 192, 204 , 340 A.2d 880, 886 (1975). See also, Commonwealth v. Sampson, 454 Pa. 215 , 311 A.2d 624 (1973); Commonwealth v. DiSilvio, 232 Pa. Super. 386 , 335 A.2d 785 (1975); Wagner v. Wagner, 158 Pa. Super. 93 , 43 A.2d 912 (1945); 6 Wigmore, Evidence §1789 (Chadborn rev. 1976). Furthermore, when the question is “whether a person acted in good faith and with reasonable cause, the information on which he acted is competent evidence even though it consists of declarations made by third persons, and regardless of whether such declarations were in fact true or false.” Henry, Pennsylvania Evidence §441 (4th Ed. 1953). See generally Commonwealth v. Wright, 455 Pa. 480 , 317 A.2d 271 (1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The opinion of a medical expert is evidence. If the fact finder chooses to believe it, he can find as fact what the expert gave as an opinion. For a fact finder to award damages for a particular condition to a plaintiff, it must find as a fact that the condition was legally caused by the defendant’s conduct. Here, the only evidence offered was that it was “probably” caused, and that is not enough. Perhaps in the world of medicine nothing is absolutely certain. Nevertheless, doctors must make decisions in their own profession every day based on their own expert opinions. Physicians must understand that it is the intent of our law that if the plaintiff's medical expert cannot form an opinion with sufficient certainty so as to make a medical judgment, there is nothing on the record with which a jury can make a decision with sufficient certainty so as to make a legal judgment.”
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.