394 Pa. Super. 302 - Leidich v. Franklin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

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.

1. “[e]ven the initial stages of discovery ... were underway before being discontinued at the behest of the defendants' counsel.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 432 Pa. Super. 276 - Schriver v. Mazziotti · Azzarrelli v. City of Scranton

2. “[T]here is too much potential for abuse in a rule which permits a plaintiff to keep an action alive without proper notice to a defendant merely by filing a praecipe for a writ of summons and then having the writ reissued in a timely fashion without attempting to effectuate service. In addition, we find that such a rule is inconsistent with the policy underlying statutes of limitation of avoiding stale claims, and with that underlying our court rules of making the process of justice as speedy and efficient as possible.... Our purpose is to avoid the situation in which a plaintiff can bring an action, but, by not making a good-faith effort to notify a defendant, retain exclusive control over it for a period in excess of that permitted by the statute of limitations.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 408 Pa. Super. 502 - Rosenberg v. Nicholson · 431 Pa. Super. 58 - Green v. Vinglas

3. ““On January 4, 1988, the plaintiff filed a praecipe for the issuance of a writ of summons with the prothonotary of Dauphin County. Payment for the issuance of the writ was made, but on the back of the writ was written: ‘writ to atty. 1/4/87 RB.’ [The 1987 date was an error and the writ was actually given to the attorney in 1988.] Next in the record is a certificate of service, prepared by an employee for the plaintiff’s attorney, indicating that a copy of the writ was served upon the defendants by first class mail dated January 5, 1988. This was not disputed by the defendants. “Also, on January 5,1988, the defendants were served with a notice to appear for deposition on February 2, 1988. Counsel for the defendants, on or about March 3, 1988, objected to the deposition ‘referencing the writ of summons, at which point it was agreed to postpone said deposition indefinitely.’ . . . “Nonetheless, from March 15 through April 4,1988, documentation (which included the plaintiff’s medical bills) was submitted to the defendants’ insurer ‘with regard to a possible settlement of the claim on a “policy limits” basis.’ ... “It was not until after April 4, 1988, that the plaintiff learned that settlement would not occur. Rather, the case was being contested ‘on technical grounds involving alleged deficiencies in the service of the writ of summons.’ . . . “After the passage of the two-year period of limitations, the plaintiff filed a praecipe on May 17, 1988, seeking the reissuance of the wr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 34 Pa. D. & C.4th 42 - Maroney v. T.J. Lipton Co.