313 Pa. Super. 479 - Wilk v. Haus’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 328 Pa. Super. 135 - Thorsen v. Iron and Glass Bank (1984), 357 Pa. Super. 286 - Washington Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Stein (1986)
53 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 212 Pa. Super. 58 - Schacter v. Albert · Gonzalez v. United States Steel Corp. · 248 Pa. Super. 95 - Gonzalez v. United States Steel Corp. · Wagner v. Grannis
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Ordinarily, summary judgment should only be entered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Community Medical Services of Clearfield Inc. v. Local 2665, AFSCME, 292 Pa.Super. 238, 242 , 437 A.2d 23, 25 (1981). See also: Thorsen v. Iron and Glass Bank, 328 Pa.Super. 135, 140 , 476 A.2d 928, 930 (1984); Rybas v. Wapner, 311 Pa.Su per. 50, 54, 457 A.2d 108, 109 (1983); Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b). In passing upon a motion for summary judgment, a court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 83 , 468 A.2d 468, 470 (1983); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 322 Pa.Super. 121, 123 , 469 A.2d 212, 213 (1983). “It is not part of the court’s function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried.” Thorsen v. Iron and Glass Bank, supra, 328 Pa.Super. at 141 , 476 A.2d at 931 ; Wilk v. Haus, 313 Pa.Super. 479, 482 , 460 A.2d 288, 290 (1983). Any doubt must be resolved against the moving party. Chorba v. Davlisa Enterprises, Inc., 303 Pa.Super. 497, 500 , 450 A.2d 36, 38 (1982).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The language of Rule 1035, adopted in 1966, was taken verbatim from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Interpretation of the scope of Rule 1035 can be aided by reference to the cases decided under the Federal rule, which establish the following criteria. On motion for summary judgment the Court must consider the entire setting of the case and all the papers that are included in the record ... One who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact ... The Court must consider both the record actually presented and the record potentially possible at the time of trial .... A hearing on a motion for summary judgment is not a trial on the merits, and the Court on such motion should not attempt to resolve conflicting contentions of fact ... The court is to accept as true all well pleaded facts in the plaintiffs pleadings, as well as the admissions on file, giving to the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom ... The record must be examined in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party .... In passing upon a motion for summary judgment it is no part of the court’s function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment____ A party should not be deprived of an adequate opportunity to ful”
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.