397 Pa. Super. 148 - Gatten v. Merzi’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably 420 Pa. Super. 18 - Foflygen v. R. ZEMEL, MD (PC) (1992), 436 Pa. Super. 559 - Continental Bank v. Andrew Building Co. (1994)
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 Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · 340 Pa. Super. 253 - Gordon v. Lancaster Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n · 365 Pa. Super. 206 - Hardy v. Pennock Insurance Agency, Inc. · D'Antona v. Hampton Grinding Wheel Co. · 347 Pa. Super. 75 - Cloverleaf Development, Inc. v. Horizon Financial F.A.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[E]ven though the [UTPCPL] does not exclude services performed by physicians, it is clear that the [UTPCPL] is intended to prohibit unlawful practices relating to trade or commerce and of the type associated with business enterprises. It equally is clear that the legislature did not intend the [UTPCPL] to apply to physicians [regarding] medical services. ... To impose the liability provided for by the [UTPCPL] to [statements regarding medical services to be rendered] would have the effect of making a physician the absolute guarantor of both his treatment and the anticipated results even in the absence of a specific contract warranting those results. ... Such an interpretation of the [UTPCPL]... is absurd.” 397 Pa. Super. 148, 151-52 , 579 A.2d 974, 976 (1990), allocatur denied, 528 Pa. 611 , 596 A.2d 157 (1991).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, the general rule is not without exceptions. Where the dismissal of one count or several counts of a multi-count complaint has the effect of precluding the plaintiff from pursuing the merits of separate and distinct causes of action, the order sustaining preliminary objections is then final, not interlocutory, with respect to those causes of action dismissed. The plaintiff is “out of court” with respect thereto.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.