Price v. Guy’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc. (2006), 2011 Pa. Super. 121 - Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2011)
31 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 Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · In re Bohn · Washington v. Baxter · Vignoli v. Standard Motor Freight, Inc. · Voitasefski v. Pittsburgh Railways 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n reviewing a trial judge’s charge, the proper test is not whether certain portions taken out of context appear erroneous. We look to the charge in its entirety, against the background of the evidence in the particular case, to determine whether or not error was committed and whether that error was prejudicial to the complaining party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Error in a charge is sufficient ground for a new trial, if the charge as a whole is inadequate or not clear or has a tendency to mislead or confuse rather than clarify a material issue. A charge will be found adequate unless the issues are not made clear to the jury or the jury was palpably misled by what the trial judge said or unless there is an omission in the charge which amounts to fundamental error. A reviewing court will not grant a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the charge unless there is a prejudicial omission of something basic or fundamental.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the standard of review for a faulty jury charge must be expressed in terms of probabilities, as there is simply no way to' determine whether a juror was, in fact, misled. A reviewing court has no means to access a juror’s actual thought processes to determine whether the juror “palpably” relied on the faulty jury charge in reaching a decision. Accordingly, we believe that the standard of review in this context is best articulated in terms of probabilities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.