417 Pa. Super. 145 - Davish v. Gidley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e find that New Jersey is the state with the most significant interest in determining the right of a New Jersey employer to subrogate where it has made workers’ compensation payments to a Pennsylvania employee pursuant to the New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Law. Instantly, neither [the employee’s] residency in Pennsylvania nor the accident’s situs in this Commonwealth is an overriding consideration. The fact that the accident occurred in Pennsylvania merely triggered [the employee’s] right to workers’ compensation under either the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Law or the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Law. We must remember that, ‘The law does not require us to apply the law of the state whose contacts are most numerous, but rather demands a sensitivity to the relative importance of each of the several contacts to the substantive policy of workmen’s compensation.’ Lewis [v. Chemetron Corp.], 448 F.Supp. [211,] 213 [ (W.D.Pa.1978) ], citing Elston v. Industrial Lift Truck, 420 Pa. 97 , 216 A.2d 318 (1966). Significantly, [the employee] made his own choice of law when he elected to collect workers’ compensation benefits under New Jersey law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 Pa. Commw. 453 - Byard F. Brogan, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

2. “We determine the state that had the most significant relationship on the basis of the question that we must resolve, and not on the location of the accident or the residence of the tortfeasor. Our inquiry is not who was responsible for the accident but whether the [insurance company and employer] have a right to subrogation of the monies paid to [the plaintiff] under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when he has made settlement with the tortfeasor. The motor vehicle accident in New Jersey merely triggered [plaintiffs] rights to compensation under the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, but it is not the overriding consideration before us. Pennsylvania is the state with the most significant interest in determining the right of an employer to subrogation where it has made payments to an injured employee. We therefore conclude that the law of Pennsylvania is applicable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 868 F. Supp. 751 - Getek v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

3. “In any action for damages against a tortfeasor ..' arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, a person who is eligible to receive benefits under ... any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719 (relating to coordination of benefits) shall be precluded from recovering the amount of benefits paid or payable ____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 924 F. Supp. 661 - Danowski by Danowski v. United States