436 Pa. Super. 94 - McDermott v. Biddle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the jury considered allegations of defamation in two separate publications, ATL I and ATL II, the text of the two publications was essentially identical, as the second was largely a reprint of the first. However, ATL II was not only a reprint, but also contained certain additional material. This material consisted of two cartoons, an editorial piece and a brief introduction. None of these materials made any specific mention of Justice McDermott or his conduct. One cartoon depicted the Supreme Court building as bearing the insignia “PA. Supreme Disgrace,” with two farcical statues standing in front. The other showed the Supreme Court building with a sewer in front from which is issuing the phrase “OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ.” The editorial was entitled “The poisoning of justice affects all Pennsylvanians.” Although the editorial was an undoubtedly negative commentary on the Supreme Court and reiterated in general terms the conclusions drawn in ATL I, it contained no new information concerning the court and no specific reference to Justice McDermott and focussed on specific allegations aimed at Justice Larsen. We agree with the trial court’s determination that no reasonable explanation for the disparity in the jury’s findings can be found based on these differences in the two publications. The trial court appropriately did not consider whether the jury could have found a separately false defamatory statement concerning Justice McDermott in the cartoons or the editorial, because ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. McDermott v. Biddle

2. “Thus, the reviewing court is called upon to review all the relevant evidence, and must evaluate the findings of underlying fact that led the jury to the ultimate conclusion that the defendant acted with actual malice. In reviewing findings of underlying fact, the reviewing court does not exercise its own independent judgment.... Rather, as. the Court had previously stated in Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 , 104 S.Ct. 1949 , 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984), the reviewing court must ascertain whether the jury’s conclusion is “clearly erroneous” and may only so conclude “when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 500 [ 104 S.Ct. at 1959 ] (emphasis in original). See also [Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, 376 Pa.Super. 508, 520 , 546 A.2d 639, 646 (1988) ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 436 Pa. Super. 192 - Reiter v. Manna

3. “In reviewing a motion for judgment n.o.v., “the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and he must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference of fact arising therefrom, and any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in his favor.” Broxie v. Household, Finance Company, 472 Pa. 373, 380 , 372 A.2d 741, 745 (1977). See also Metts v. Griglak, 438 Pa. 392 , 264 A.2d 684 (1970) and Gonzalez v. United States Steel Corp., 484 Pa. 277 , 398 A.2d 1378 (1979). Moreover [a] judgment n.o.v. should only be entered in a clear case and any doubts must be resolved in favor of the verdict winner. See Atkins v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 489 Pa. 344 , 414 A.2d 100 (1980) and Stewart v. Chernicky, 439 Pa. 43 , 266 A.2d 259 (1970).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 436 Pa. Super. 192 - Reiter v. Manna