Kuchinic v. McCrory’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 134 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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A contrary rule] would compel counsel to urge upon the trial court every conceivable theory, on the mere chance that before his case is finally concluded, one such theory might become the law. Since, by hypothesis, the trial court would have to overrule any objection based on his failure to adopt one of these theories, on appeal, the winning party below would be in the same position as the instant appellee. Indeed this requirement would tend to delay justice, for the court below would still have to consider and rule on each theory. Therefore, we are unwilling to conclude that the appellants’ failure to interject the rational of [the newly announced decision] into the trial constitutes a waiver and precludes them from now seeking the benefit of that decision. Id., 422 Pa. at 626 , 222 A.2d at 901 (footnote omitted).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Ernst · Duffy v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

2. “Indeed when properly analyzed the present cases are a prime example of what has been characterized as a “false conflict”, for under no stretch of the imagination can Georgia be viewed as a concerned jurisdiction. In passing its statute, Georgia undoubtedly intended either to protect insurance companies from collusive suits or to prevent ungrateful guests from suing their hosts; it most assuredly did not mean to encourage the exercise of less than due care by those who use its highways or airways. Georgia’s only contact with the present case, as the situs of the accident, is wholly fortuitous, whereas Pennsylvania, as the place where the host-guest relationship was established, where it was intended to terminate, and as the domicile of all four of the aircraft’s occupants, is the state with the most significant interest in defining the legal consequences attaching to the relationship here involved. See Griffith v. United Airlines, supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gross v. McDonald

3. “Unless vested rights are affected, a court’s interpretation of a statute is considered to have been the law from its enactment date, despite contrary intervening holdings. Buradus v. General Cement Prods. Co., 159 Pa.Super. 501 , 48 A.2d 883 (1946), aff’d 356 Pa. 349 , 52 A.2d 205 (1947). In such circumstances, the latest interpretation is applicable to a case whose appeal has not yet been decided. Kuchinic v. McCrory, 422 Pa. 620, 625 , 222 A.2d 897, 900 (1966) (footnote omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 247 Pa. Super. 46 - Commonwealth v. Lewis