Lance v. Wyeth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “two main avenues per which summary relief may be granted. Employing the first of these, a movant may rely on uncontroverted facts, and/or allow that the factual allegations made by the non-moving party could be true, while contending that, even accepting such facts, judgment should be rendered for the movant as a matter of law. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1035.2(1). Alternatively, after discovery, a party may challenge the ability of the non-moving party to adduce evidence of facts material to establishing a claim or defense. See id. No. 1035.2(2).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Nazareth Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kram · 47 Pa. D. & C.5th 61 - HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Stevens

2. “[T]he adjudicatory process does not translate readily into the field of broad-scale policymaking. Seebold , 57 A.3d at 1245 .... For this reason, and because the Legislature possesses superior policymaking tools and resources and serves as the political branch, we took the position in Seebold that we would not direct the substantive common law away from well-established general norms in the absence of some clear predominance of policy justifications. See id. (citing Cafazzo v. Cent. Med. Health Servs., Inc. , [ 542 Pa. 526 ] 668 A.2d 521 , 537 (Pa. 1995), for the proposition that, "[b]efore a change in the law is made, a court, if it is to act responsibly must be able to see with reasonable clarity the results of its decision and to say with reasonable certainty that the change will serve the best interests of society" (citation omitted) ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Walters v. UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside

3. “A manufacturer who fails to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture of a chattel which, unless carefully made, he should recognize as involving an unreasonable risk of causing physical harm to those who use it for a purpose for which the manufacturer should expect it to be used and to those whom he should expect to be endangered by its probable use, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by its lawful use in a manner and for a purpose for which it is supplied.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 395. .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Smith v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.