358 Pa. Super. 400 - Brophy v. Brizuela’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably 384 Pa. Super. 503 - Lira v. Albert Einstein Medical Center (1989), 360 Pa. Super. 416 - Dion v. Graduate Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (1987)
33 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 315 Pa. Super. 135 - Spain v. Vicente · Brannan v. Lankenau Hospital · Jones v. Harrisburg Polyclinic Hospital · Pompa v. Hojnacki · 307 Pa. Super. 308 - Morgan v. Sbarbaro
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a)---- (1) A party may through interrogatories require (a) any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial and to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify and (b) the other party to have each expert so identified by him state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. (b) If the identity of an expert witness is not disclosed in compliance with subdivision (a)(1) of this rule, he shall not be permitted to testify on behalf of the defaulting party at the trial of the action. However, if the failure to disclose the identity of the witness is the result of extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the defaulting party, the court may grant a continuance or other appropriate relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Rule 4019. Sanctions (a)(1) The court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if (i) a party fails to serve answers ... to written interrogatories. (viii) a party or person otherwise fails to make discovery or to obey an order of court respecting discovery. (c) The court, when action under subdivision (a) of this rule, may make (2) an order ... prohibiting [the disobedient party] from introducing in evidence designated documents, things or testimony ...”
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.