435 Pa. Super. 360 - Hodges v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 437 Pa. Super. 258 - Commonwealth v. Berryman (1994), 438 Pa. Super. 78 - Berger v. Rinaldi (1994)
3 federal appellate · 60 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 Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Shiomos v. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT BD. · Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of Allegheny · Rizzo v. Haines · Foster v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Is a resident of this Commonwealth. (2) Is injured as the result of a motor vehicle accident occurring in this Commonwealth. (3) Is not an owner of a motor vehicle required to be registered under Chapter 13 (relating to registration of vehicles). (4) Is not the operator or occupant of a motor vehicle owned by the Federal Government or any of its agencies, departments or authorities. (5) Is not the operator or occupant of a motor vehicle owned by a self-insurer or by an individual or entity who or which is immune from liability for, or is not required to provide, benefits or uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. (6) Is otherwise not entitled to receive any first party benefits under section 1711 (relating to required benefits) or 1712 (relating to availability of benefits) applicable to the injury arising from the accident. (7) Is not the operator or occupant of a recreational vehicle not intended for highway use, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle or motorized pedalcycle or other like type vehicle required to be registered under this title and involved in the accident.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he findings of a trial court sitting without a jury have the same force and effect on appeal as a jury’s verdict. Rizzo v. Haines, 520 Pa. 484 , 555 A.2d 58 (1989); Piccinini v. Teachers Protective Mutual Life Insurance Co., 316 Pa.Super. 519 , 463 A.2d 1017 (1983); Slaseman v. Myers, 309 Pa.Super. 537 , 455 A.2d 1213 (1983). We will reverse the trial court only if its findings are predicated upon an error of law or are unsupported by competent evidence in the record. Id. On review, it is not within our province to find facts or to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rizzo v. Haines, supra. Moreover, the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence that is presented, to make all credibility determinations, and to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Gemini Equipment v. Pennsy Supply, 407 Pa.Super. 404, 411 , 595 A.2d 1211, 1214 (1991) (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“¶ 3 The Plan, as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1751 et seq., was enacted by the legislature to provide limited statutory benefits to certain “eligible claimants” injured in an automobile-related accident who are not otherwise entitled to recover insurance benefits. [The plan] is not an insurance company but an administrative organization that distributes the financial responsibility for certain limited statutory benefits among Pennsylvania’s automobile insurers, as a cost of doing business in Pennsylvania, and through the insurers’ policy holders. The plan basically provides eligible claimants the minimum uninsured coverage that should have been carried on any vehicle involved in the accident. In order to recover any benefits from [the plan], a claimant must first satisfy the seven (7) eligibility requirements as set forth in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1752.”
2 later decisions 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.