291 Pa. Super. 173 - Smith v. Chardak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e are unable to ascertain, under the circumstances, whether the jury was misled by the erroneous instruction on such a vital matter as appellant's negligence. Our Supreme Court in Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 417 Pa. 581 , 209 A.2d 289 (1965) made some observations regarding erroneous instructions which are equally applicable here, viz. : "`Where an erroneous instruction consists of a palpable misstatement of the law, it is not cured by a conflicting or contradictory one which correctly states the law on the point involved, for the jury, assuming, as is their duty, that the instructions are all correct, may as readily have followed the incorrect as the correct one and it is impossible to know which they accepted. [citing cases]. See also: Stegmuller v. Davis, 408 Pa. 267 , 182 A.2d 745 [(1962)]; Lieberman v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 410 Pa. 179, 186 , 188 A.2d 719 [(1963)]." Id. [417 Pa.] at 586, 209 A.2d at 292 , quoting Hisak v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co., 360 Pa. 1, 6 , 59 A.2d 900, 903 (1948).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 387 Pa. Super. 253 - Leaphart v. Whiting Corp.

2. “Where the accuracy of a charge is in issue, an appellate court must look to the charge in its entirety against the background of evidence in order to determine whether or not error was committed and whether that error was prejudicial to the complaining party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 324 Pa. Super. 499 - Berry v. Friday