440 Pa. Super. 251 - Ammon v. McCloskey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 34 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “mutual or successive relationship to the same rights of property. In its broadest sense, `privity' is defined as mutual or successive relationships to the same right of property, or such an identification of interest of one person with another as to represent the same legal right.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kevin O'Halloran, in His Capacity for Island View Crossing Ii, L.P. v. Prudential Sav. Bank (In re Island View Crossing Ii, L.P.) · Hillgartner v. PORT AUTH. OF ALLEGHENY CTY.

2. ““In a malpractice action based upon a lawyer’s representation of a client in a civil matter, a plaintiff must establish the following three elements in order to recover: (1) the employment of the lawyer; (2) the failure of the lawyer to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge; and (3) that such failure was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff. Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 246 , 621 A.2d 108, 112 (1993); Composition Roofers Local 30/30B v. Katz, 398 Pa. Super. 564, 568 , 581 A.2d 607, 609 (1990); Schenkel v. Monheit, 266 Pa. Super. 396, 399 , 405 A.2d 493, 494 (1979). ‘In any cause of action for malpractice, some harm must be shown to have occurred to the [client-assignor].’ Com position Roofers Local 30/30B v. Katz, supra. . . . See: Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 56 , 459 A.2d 744, 749 (1983). Thus, inSchenkelv. Monheit, supra, the Superior Court said: “ ‘The mere breach of a professional duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat of future harm — not yet realized — does not suffice to create a cause of action for negligence. Hence, until the client suffers appreciable harm as a consequence of his attorney’s negligence, the client cannot establish a cause of action for malpractice. Budd v. Nixen, 6 Cal.3d 195 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 849, 852 [-53], 491 P.2d 433, 436-37 (1971).’ Id., 266 Pa. Super, at 399, 405 A.2d at 494 (footnote omitted).” Ammon, supra at 257-58 , 655 A.2d at 552 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 452 Pa. Super. 467 - Kituskie v. Corbman · 37 Pa. D. & C.4th 452 - Spang & Co. v. Reed

3. “****** Collateral estoppel, sometimes referred to as issue preclusion, “operates to prevent a question of law or an issue of fact which has once been litigated and adjudicated finally in a court of competent jurisdiction from being relitigated in a subsequent suit.” Schultz v. Connelly, 378 Pa.Super. 98 , 102 n. 4, 548 A.2d 294 , 296 n. 4 (1988), quoting Day v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 318 Pa.Super. 225, 236 , 464 A.2d 1313, 1318 (1983). However, collateral estoppel is applicable only where: “(1) the issue decided in the prior action was identical with the one presented in the later action; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom the plea is asserted has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in a prior action.” Grant v. GAF Corp., 415 Pa.Super. 137, 149 , 608 A.2d 1047, 1053 (1992), aff'd, Gasperin v. GAF Corp., 536 Pa. 429 , 639 A.2d 1170 (1994).... ******”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 452 Pa. Super. 467 - Kituskie v. Corbman · 398 F. Supp. 2d 400 - Osiris Enterprises v. Borough of Whitehall