Capek v. Devito’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably LJL Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp. (2009), 2002 Pa. Super. 198 - Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc. (2002)
6 federal appellate · 75 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 Phillips v. A-Best Products Co. · Safeguard Mutual Insurance v. Williams · P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission · Albright v. Abington Memorial Hospital · Dept. of Transp. v. Manor Mines, 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[W]hen a written contract is clear and unequivocal, its meaning must be determined by its contents alone.' In construing a contract, we must determine the intent of the parties and give effect to all of the provisions therein.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all of the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. In the absence of a factual dispute, we must discern whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ‡ ‡ ‡ 'Jfi ‡ % Interpretation of a contract ... poses a question of law. In construing a contract, the intention of the parties is paramount and the court will adopt an interpretation which under all circumstances ascribes the most reasonable, probable, and natural conduct of the parties, bearing in mind the objects manifestly to be accomplished.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is evident from the Agreement that the parties intended to provide for payment to [the appellant] in the event of two possible outcomes: (1) when it is the case that [the appellant] is retained until resolution of the litigation, and (2) when the Agreement is terminated prior to resolution of the litigation. In the event that [the appellant] is retained until the claim’s resolution, the “no recovery no fee” provision (in conjunction with the 30% contingency fee clause) establishes that [the appellant] will be paid 30% of any amount [the client] receives, only if there is recovery by suit or settlement; if there is no recovery, then [the client] pays no fee. In contrast, in the event that the Agreement is prematurely terminated, the liquidated damages clause establishes that [the appellant] will receive the greater of 30% of a negotiated settlement offer or a fee based upon his prevailing rate.”
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.