383 Pa. Super. 85 - Lough v. Spring’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 435 Pa. Super. 530 - Rieser v. Glukowsky (1994), Caron v. Reliance Insurance (1997)
25 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 Karis v. Karis · Bass v. Commonwealth · 285 Pa. Super. 241 - Turner v. May Corp. · 362 Pa. Super. 9 - Luckenbaugh v. Shearer · 288 Pa. Super. 37 - Gallardy v. Ashcraft
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.
“The procedure for taking an appeal from a compulsory arbitration award is clear. A party to a compulsory arbitration may take an appeal from the award by seeking a trial de novo in the Court of Common Pleas. 42 Pa.[C.S.] § 7361(d). Rule of Civil Procedure 1308(a) provides that an appeal from an arbitration award must be taken "not later than thirty days after the entry of the award on the docket ...." The Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 1307 states: These Rules contemplate that the board will disperse after rendering the award, not to reconvene and not to hear any motions or applications to amend modify or change the award. If any party is dissatisfied with any aspect of the award, the sole remedy is an appeal for a trial de novo . (emphasis added) The rules provide only one exception to this procedure. Subsection (d) of Rule 1307 provides that the court of common pleas may mold an award where the record discloses obvious errors in either the mathematics or language of the award. The court's power to mold is specifically limited to correction of such patent errors and is the same as the power of a trial court to mold a jury verdict. Pa.R.C.P. 1307(d). The rule is aimed at the corrections of formal errors that do not go to the substance and merits of the award. Lough [ v. Spring , 383 Pa.Super. 85 , 556 A.2d 441 , 442-43 (Pa.Super. 1989) ], (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Additionally, Timeliness of an appeal, whether it is an appeal to an appellate court or a de novo appea”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n interpreting the rules of procedure in light of Rule 126, we also remain mindful of Pa. R.C.P. 127(b), which states “when the words of a rule are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.’ Thus, although the rules are to be liberally construed, a party seeking redress cannot substantially deviate from the clear mandates of the rules for filing an appeal from an arbitration award.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not later than thirty days after the entry of the award on the docket ....”
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.