430 Pa. Super. 10 - Reilly v. Tiergarten Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Martin v. Evans (1998), 454 Pa. Super. 242 - Frey v. Smith (1996)
2 district · 54 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 414 Pa. Super. 160 - Dudley v. USX Corp. · Orner v. Mallick · 361 Pa. Super. 35 - Askew by Askew v. Zeller · 367 Pa. Super. 36 - Vernon v. Stash · Matthews v. Konieczny
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. If so, the second step is to determine whether there is any discrepancy as to any facts material to the case. Finally, it must be determined whether, in granting summary judgment, the trial court has usurped improperly the role of the jury by resolving any material issues of fact. Dudley v. USX Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 160, 168-69 , 606 A.2d 916, 920 (1992). An order granting a motion for summary judgment will not be reversed absent an error of law or an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Marriott Corp., 388 Pa.Super. 121, 125 , 564 A.2d 1296, 1298 (1989) (citation omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In order to establish causation, the plaintiff must prove that the breach was “both the proximate and actual cause of the injury.” Proximate cause is a question of law to be determined by the court before the issue of actual cause may be put to the jury. A determination of legal causation, essentially regards “whether the negligence, if any, was so remote that as a matter of law, [the actor] cannot be held legally responsible for [the] harm which subsequently occurred.” Therefore, the court must determine whether the injury would have been foreseen by an ordinary person as the natural and probable outcome of the act complained of.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Liability is contingent upon the probability or foreseeability of the resulting injury, not merely the possibility that it could occur .”
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.