Chalkey v. Roush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

125 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[B]oth Rule 227.1 and Lane Enterprises [Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 551 Pa. 306 , 710 A.2d 54 (Pa.1998), rev’g, 700 A.2d 465 (Pa.Super.1997) ] mandate that a party file post-trial motions from a trial court’s decision and order following the conclusion of a trial.... In rescinding Rule 1518 and replacing it with Rule 227.1, however, this Court intended to abolish that equity-specific practice and establish a standard post-trial practice, which applies to both actions at law and actions in equity. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 cmt. (1983). Under Rule 227.1, a party must file post-trial motions at the conclusion of a trial in any type of action in order to preserve claims that the party wishes to raise on appeal. In other words, a trial court’s order at the conclusion of a trial, whether the action is one at law or in equity, simply cannot become final for purposes of filing an appeal until the court decides any timely post-trial motions. See Pa. R.C.P. 227.1(a). Moreover, just as we found that there was no excuse for a party’s failure to file post-trial motions from a trial court’s abrupt opinion following a trial in an action at law in Lane Enterprises, we find that there is no excuse for a party’s failure to file post-trial motions from a trial court’s order following an equity trial, even if that order does not comply with the requirements for an adjudication listed in Rule 1517(a). 12 ...”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas A. Robinson Family Ltd. Partnership v. Bioni · 2004 Pa. Super. 234 - Billig v. Skvarla

2. “(1) verdict, discharge of the jury because of inability to agree, or nonsuit in the case of a jury trial; or (2) notice of nonsuit or the filing of the decision or adjudication in the case of a trial without jury or equity trial.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. E. Chaney v. Fairmount Park Real Estate Corporation · 2004 Pa. Super. 258 - In re T.I.

3. “[S]uch declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.’’). We have amended the caption accordingly. 3 . Their underlying complaint alleges that Michael Peters suffered multiple fractures (foot, leg, hip, ribs) and paralysis of his left leg, incurring medical/hospital expenses of approximately $700,000.00. Daughter Jaden, then six years old, (d/o/b 10/13/02), suffered facial fractures and blindness in her right eye, incurring medical/hospital expenses of $68,000.00. (See Complaint, at 7-8, §§ 28-29, at R.R. 103a-104a; see also id. at 4 § 6, at R.R. 100a). 4 . 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1701-1799.7. 5 . Appellees later added Evans Delivery as an additional defendant. 6 . Appellants timely filed a concise statement of errors on January 31, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court filed an opinion on February 18, 2014. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). 7 . We have re-numbered Appellants’ questions. In addition to mis-numbering their questions, we note that Appellants fail to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a), which directs in pertinent part that "the argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part- — -in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed' — the particular point treated therein[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 276 - Peters, M. v. National Interstate Insurance Compan · 2003 Pa. Super. 7 - Liberty Property Trust v. Day-Timers, Inc.