334 Pa. Super. 329 - Elder v. Orluck’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably 393 Pa. Super. 566 - Taylor v. Celotex Corp. (1990), 380 Pa. Super. 120 - McKEE BY McKEE v. Evans (1988)
2 district · 51 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 Builders Supply Co. v. McCabe · Burbage v. Boiler Engineering & Supply Co. · Broxie v. Household Finance Company · 95 Wis. 2d 461 - Reiter v. Dyken · 304 Pa. Super. 438 - McDevitt v. Terminal Warehouse Co.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he case law in this Commonwealth indicates that the sudden emergency doctrine and the assured clear distance rule are mutually exclusive points of law and that in a given factual situation it is error to charge on both doctrines. Sullivan v. Wolson, 262 Pa.Super. 397 , 396 A.2d 1230 (1979); Brown v. Schriver, 254 Pa.Super. 468 , 386 A.2d 45 (1978). This is based on the rationale that the assured clear distance rule applies to essentially static or static objects, including vehicles moving in the same direction, while the sudden emergency doctrine applies only to moving instrumentalities thrust into a driver’s path of travel. Brown v. Schriver, supra. However, there is case law for the proposition that it is proper for the court to charge on both points of law if the facts do not conclusively establish the existence of a sudden emergency situation. Potenburg v. Varner, 284 Pa.Super. 19 , 424 A.2d 1370 (1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) General rule. — In all actions brought to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery by the plaintiff or his legal representative where such negligence was not greater than the causal negligence of the defendant or defendants against whom recovery is sought, but any damages sustained by the plaintiff shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well settled that in reviewing the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, resolving all doubts in his favor and giving him the benefit of every reasonable inference arising from the evidence. Feld v. Merriam, 314 Pa.Super. 414 , 461 A.2d 225 (1983); McDevitt v. Terminal Warehouse Co., 304 Pa.Super. 438 , 450 A.2d 991 (1982). It is also well settled that judgment notwithstanding the verdict may only be granted in a clear case when the factors are such that no two reasonable men could fail to agree that the verdict was improper. Walsh v. Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co., 303 Pa.Super. 52 , 449 A.2d 573 (1982).”
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.