412 Pa. Super. 171 - Brandt v. Eagle’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 2020
2 federal appellate · 13 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 Marks v. Tasman · Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman · Hilbert v. Roth · 263 Pa. Super. 174 - Lasprogata v. Qualls · Thompson v. Fox
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.
“A plaintiff who is injured at the hands of more than one tort-feasor may sue and recover a judgment against any one or all of the tort-feasors and may attempt to collect the damages awarded by the judgment against any one or all of them. However, although a plaintiff may obtain a judgment against several tort-feasors for the same harm, he or she is entitled to only one satisfaction for that harm.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is not at all unreasonable that releases and satisfactions should be treated differently. A release, even after entry of a judgment, may well be the result of a compromise for less than the full value of the plaintiffs claim.... With respect to a satisfaction of judgment, however, particularly where, as here, it follows an adversary trial in which plaintiff proved his damages, it may more safely be assumed that the judgment does represent the true value of the claim and therefore, when the plaintiff has it marked satisfied of record, the common law assumption that he is satisfied may reasonably be permitted to operate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“special” verdict sheet that required them to answer whether they were persuaded that appellee’s surgery was necessary. 2 . Appellee admitted on cross-examination that there was a 50% improvement after surgery. 3 . Summary Judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute as to any material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Md.Rule 2-501. The standard of appellate review”
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.