362 Pa. Super. 588 - Clark v. Hoerner’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 383 Pa. Super. 633 - Butler v. Flo-Ron Vending Co. (1989), 2000 Pa. Super. 239 - Ratti v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. (2000)
34 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 Byrne v. Karalexis · Hamil v. Bashline · Feingold v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Hicks v. United States · Fisher v. Dye
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) A witness whose identity has not been revealed as provided in this chapter 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally the admission of rebuttal evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Rebuttal evidence is proper where it is offered to discredit testimony of an opponent’s witness. Our Supreme Court has previously opined “where the evidence goes to the impeachment of his opponent’s witness, it is admissible as a matter of right.” Furthermore, in order to constitute proper impeachment evidence, the rebuttal witness’ version of the facts must differ from that of the witness being impeached.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“‘Rebuttal evidence’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.1979) as ‘evidence given to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove facts [as opposed to opinions] given in evidence by the adverse party.’ A party cannot, as a matter of right, offer in rebut tal evidence that which is properly part of his case in chief, but will be confined to matters requiring explanation and to answering new matter introduced by his opponent.”
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.