Kralik v. Cromwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The grant of a new trial lies within the inherent power of a trial court, and on appeal we will not interfere with the exercise thereof, unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which necessarily controlled the grant of the new trial. Getz v. Balliet, 431 Pa. 441 , 246 A.2d 108 (1968). Moreover, as we stated in Clewell v. Pummer, 388 Pa. 592, 598 , 131 A.2d 375, 378 (1957), and recently reaffirmed in Getz v. Balliet, supra, “Where a trial Judge or Court sees and hears the witnesses, it has not only an inherent fundamental and salutary power, but it is its duty, to grant a new trial when it believes the verdict was capricious or was against the weight of the evidence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” However, it is error for the trial court to grant a new trial merely because it believes the jury should have returned a different verdict. Eisert v. Jones, 408 Pa. 73 , 182 A.2d 717 (1962). Also, a trial court should give its reasons for the grant of a new trial, and its statement of the mere conclusion that the interests of justice require it is not sufficient to sustain such an order. Beal v. Reading Company, 370 Pa. 45 , 87 A.2d 214 (1952), and Bellettiere v. City of Philadelphia, 367 Pa. 638 , 81 A.2d 857 (1951).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 Pa. Commw. 245 - Morrison v. Dept. of Public Welfare

2. ““Now, in connection with this section, you should bear in mind that where it appears that a motorist permits his automobile to deflect from its course and to cross the highway into the wrong traffic lane an inference of negligence arises. “Another issue in the case is the question of skidding. The skidding of a vehicle does not of itself establish or constitute negligence. The plaintiff must prove that the skidding resulted from the negligent act of the defendant. Otherwise, the defendant would be absolved from the consequences. “The plaintiff to establish negligence must prove that the defendant had mismanaged his car prior to the skidding or that the defendant operated his car at an excessive rate of speed, or the defendant’s skidding is the result of his carelessness. “While skidding in itself is not negligence, it can be and often is the result of negligence. If the defendant’s lack of reasonable care caused the skid, he is hable even though it was skidding that carried him into the collision.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Pa. D. & C.2d 703 - Penjuke v. Rodgers

3. “The instant situation is analogous to that where the evidence of the plaintiff establishes, without more, an automobile collision resulting from defendant’s automobile being on the wrong side of the highway, and the defendant attempts to escape blame for the collision by showing that roadway conditions caused his automobile to “skid” out of control. In such a case, it is not the plaintiff’s burden to prove that the skidding was due to the defendant’s careless driving. Id. at 618 , 258 A.2d at 657 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 Pa. Super. 267 - Kenworthy v. Burghart