Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 449 Pa. Super. 395 - Stroback v. Camaioni

449 Pa. Super. 395 - Stroback v. Camaioni’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably In Re the Ground Round, Inc (2007), Konidaris v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd. (2008)

19 state decisions

1701996200020102020decided

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 William Marbury v. James Madison · United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey · Lynch v. United States · Worthen Co Board of Com'rs of Street Improvement Dist No 513 of Little Rock Ark v. Kavanaugh · 9 Pa. Commw. 176 - Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski

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. “A law is only retroactive in its application when it relates back and gives a previous transaction a legal effect different from that which it had under the law in effect when it transpired. Only where no substantive right or contractual obligation is involved may a subsequently enacted statute be applied to a condition existing on its effective date where the condition results from events occurring prior to the effective date of the statute. A newly enacted law may be applied retroactively if it impairs no contract and disturbs no vested right, but only varies remedies, cures defects in proceedings otherwise fair, and does not vary existing obligations contrary to their situation when originally undertaken. Moreover, amendatory statutes are not to be construed as retroactive unless such a construction is so clear as to preclude all question as to the intention of the legislature. This rule of statutory construction is particularly applicable when the legislation in question interferes with existing contractual obligations or antecedent rights.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In any action for damages against a tortfeasor, or in any uninsured or underinsured motorist proceeding, arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, a person who is eligible to receive benefits under the coverages set forth in this subchapter, or workers’ compensation, or any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719 (relating to coordination of benefits) shall be precluded from recovering the amount of benefits paid or payable under this subchapter, or workers’ compensation, or any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “There is a vested right in an accrued cause of action.”
    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.