511 F. Supp. 906 - Culbreth v. Simone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under the new scheme, it is unclear whether the two-year period applicable to actions for “taking, detaining or injuring personal property ...” id. § 5524(3) or the six-year catch-all provision, id § 5527(6), applies to an action based on common law fraud____ We need not decide that issue because it would not make a difference under the circumstances presented here. If the six-year catchall provision applies, the limitations period is the same under both the old and new statutes. Even if the two-year statute is generally applicable to fraud actions it would be inapplicable in this case because of the operation of the transition section,____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 611 F. Supp. 532 - A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. v. Congress Financial Corp.

2. “When confronted with questions of statutory construction, this Court has repeatedly held that the words of a statute are to be interpreted in light of the antecedent case law. Tarlo’s Estate, 315 Pa. 321 , 172 A. 139 (1934). Thus, legislative intent to effectuate a drastic change in the law is not to be inferred by mere omission and implication. Young v. Kaye, 443 Pa. 335 , 279 A.2d 759 (1971).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 595 F. Supp. 1034 - Bernicker v. Pratt