289 Pa. Super. 424 - Carnicelli v. Bartram’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 348 Pa. Super. 285 - Wilkes-Barre Iron & Wire Works, Inc. v. Pargas of Wilkes-Barre, Inc. (1985), 373 Pa. Super. 536 - Jewelcor Jewelers & Distributors, Inc. v. Corr (1988)
39 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. · Commonwealth v. Blair · Commonwealth v. Waters · Tagnani v. Lew · Marks v. Bell Tel. Co. of Penn.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has already said that this is true for criminal cases. “Boiler-plate” motions, such as “the verdict was against the law” or “against the evidence,” are not sufficient because “counsel’s precise statement of issues and grounds relied upon in written form [is necessary to] insure[] thát both the trial court and the Commonwealth will have adequate notice of the legal theories being advanced.” Commonwealth v. Waters, 477 Pa. 430, 434 , 384 A.2d 234, 236 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31 , 331 A.2d 213 (1975). We believe that Tagnani [v. Lew, 493 Pa. 371 , 426 A.2d 595 (1981) ] requires that the same disapproval of “boiler-plate” motions be extended to civil cases. To permit the trial court to grant a new trial on the basis of a very general assignment of error, such as “the verdict is against the law” or “against the evidence,” would result in losing the advantages of requiring specific assignments of error. Furthermore, to permit the trial court to make its own selection of reasons for granting a new trial, and then allocate those reasons under the rubric that the verdict was “against the law” or “against the evidence,” would permit the court to grant a new trial for a reason that counsel would have been prevented from raising in the motion for new trial because at the time the alleged error occurred, no objection was made. Such a result would clearly be contrary to the mandate of Tagnani.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“An order granting or refusing to grant a new trial is within the discretion of the lower court. However, the discretion is not absolute, Decker v. Kulesza, 369 Pa. 259 , 85 A.2d 413 (1952); Albert v. Alter, 252 Pa.Super. 203 , 381 A.2d 459 (1977), and if the order is based on an error of law or represents an abuse of discretion, we will reverse. Handfinger v. Philadelphia Gas Works, 439 Pa. 130 , 266 A.2d 769 (1970); Weaver v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 267 Pa.Super. 548 , 407 A.2d 45 (1979); Sindler v. Goldman, 256 Pa.Super. 417 , 389 A.2d 1192 (1978). In reviewing the order, we examine all of the evidence presented at trial. Hayter v. Sileo, 230 Pa.Super. 329 , 326 A.2d 462 (1974).”
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.