Bennett v. Sakel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Generally, if a litigant fails to call a witness who presumably would support his allegation, the opposing party is entitled to have the jury instructed that it may infer that the witness, if called, would testify adversely to the party who faded to call him. But this rule is inapplicable if such witness is equally available to both sides of the litigation. In other words, the inference is permitted only where the uncalled witness is peculiarly within the reach and knowledge of only one of the parties.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 109 - Kovach v. Solomon · 2005 Pa. Super. 75 - Hawkey v. Peirsel

2. “The issue before this Court is whether counsel, during closing argument, may properly encourage the jury to draw adverse inferences concerning witness not called by the opposing party, where the witnesses were equally available to both parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 109 - Kovach v. Solomon

3. “We therefore hold that an attorney may not ask the jury to draw an adverse inference concerning the opposing party’s failure to call a witness where that witness was equally available to both sides.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 109 - Kovach v. Solomon