Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 Pa. Super. 560 - Drapeau v. Joy Technologies, Inc.

447 Pa. Super. 560 - Drapeau v. Joy Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 40 F. Supp. 2d 644 - Sunquest Information Systems, Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (1999), Electronic Laboratory Supply Co. v. Cullen (1998)

16 state decisions

160199620002010decided

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 Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co. · Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co. · Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman · Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., Inc. · Davis v. Pennzoil Co.

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

  1. “When we review the grant of a motion for summary judgment made under Pa.R.C.P. 1035, the appellate court’s scope of review is well-settled: summary judgment is properly granted where ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b). Summary judgment may be granted only where the right is clear and free from doubt. The moving party has the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact. The record and any inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and any doubt must be resolved against the moving party. The trial court will be overturned on the entry of summary judgment only if there has been an error of law or a clear abuse of discretion. (Citations omitted).”
    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.