398 Pa. Super. 190 - Purdy v. Zaver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellate review of equity matters is limited to a determination of whether the chancellor committed an error of law or abused his discretion. The scope of review of a final decree in equity is limited and will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious.” Hostetter v. Hoover, 378 Pa.Super. 1, 6-7 , 547 A.2d 1247, 1250 (1988), allocatur denied, 523 Pa. 642 , 565 A.2d 1167 (1989), quoting Rosen v. Rittenhouse Towers, 334 Pa.Super 124, 129, 482 A.2d 1113, 1116 (1984) (citations omitted). The test employed is not whether the appellate court would have reached the same result as the trial judge, who heard and saw the evidence, but whether a judicial mind, on due consideration of the evidence, could reasonably have reached the conclusion of the trial judge. See: Yuhas v. Schmidt, 434 Pa. 447, 454 , 258 A.2d 616, 619-620 (1969); Masciantonio Will, 392 Pa. 362, 367 , 141 A.2d 362, 365 (1958). See also: 16 Std.Pa. Prac.2d § 91:155.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 434 Pa. Super. 392 - Robbins v. Kristofic · Kaufer v. Beccaris

2. ““(a) The court shall make an adjudication and may do so before the testimony has been transcribed. The adjudication shall consist of (1) a statement of the issues; (2) a closely condensed chronological statement, in narrative form or in separate findings, of all the facts which are necessary to be known in order to determine the issues; (3) a discussion of the questions of law involved and the court’s conclusions of law and (4) a decree nisi.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 425 Pa. Super. 285 - Puleo v. Thomas

3. “it [is] not unreasonable to require that they insert a provision in the agreement of sale which would have reserved the same. The absence of such a reservation suggests most strongly that [the alleged right] was not intended to be retained.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Louis Epstein Family Partnership v. Kmart Corporation