455 Pa. Super. 158 - Soderberg v. Weisel’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of ERS (2000), Juniata Valley Bank v. Martin Oil Co. (1999)
51 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 378 Pa. Super. 1 - Hostetter v. Hoover · 282 Pa. Super. 526 - Krosnar v. Schmidt Krosnar McNaughton Garrett Co. · American Ass'n of Meat Processors v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange · 427 Pa. Super. 118 - Meeting House Lane, Ltd. v. Melso · 376 Pa. Super. 260 - Niles v. Fall Creek Hunting Club, Inc.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(5) enter any other appropriate order. (b) Post-Trial relief may not be granted unless the grounds therefor, (1) if then available, were raised in pre-trial proceedings or by motion, objection, point for charge, request for findings of fact or conclusions of law, offer of proof or other appropriate method at trial[.] Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(a), (b)(1), 42 Pa.C.S.A. (emphasis added). ¶ 19 In the instant case, the record reveals that Appellees raised a pretrial motion to amend the caption to substitute DMI for DMC as the proper defendant. The trial court denied this motion. After trial, Appellees raised this issue again by way of a post-trial motion. Rather than reverse its previous ruling outright, the trial court took the intermediate step of holding an evidentiary hearing to determine whether DMI should be substituted as the proper defendant under principles of successor liability. The trial court explained its decision as follows: Because plaintiffs properly made a pre-trial motion for a change in defendant, plaintiffs reserved the right to bring up successor liability as a matter of post-trial relief. When plaintiffs raised the issue of successor liability at post-trial argument, they gave the court an opportunity to review and reconsider its determination during pre-trial proceedings that the complaint could not be amended to name DMI, as successor to DMC, as the proper defendant.... [Rule 227.1] allows post-trial relief where the same relief was denied during pre-trial proceed”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The scope of review of a final decree in equity is limited and will not be disturbed unless it is unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious. Sprankle v. Burns, 450 Pa.Super. 319 , 675 A.2d 1287 (1996); Hostetter v. Hoover, [supra]. However, conclusions of law or fact, being derived from nothing more than the chancellor’s reasoning from underlying facts and not involving a determination of credibility of witnesses are reviewable. Sprankle, 450 Pa.Super. at 322 , 675 A.2d at 1288 (quoting Krosnar v. Schmidt Krosnar McNaughton Garrett Co., 282 Pa.Super. 526, 534 , 423 A.2d 370, 374 (1980)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rock v. Pyle“[i]t is generally true that easements may not be modified, changed, altered, or relocated without the consent of both the dominant and the servient estates, ... there is no per se prohibition against a landowner relocating a prescriptive easement unless such action completely denies the easement holder the intended use of the original easement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Arp v. Edmonds
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.