Rovegno, Alice J., Individually and as of the Estate of Rovegno, Marshall, Deceased, in No. 80-2512 v. Geppert Brothers, Inc., and Ward, Lewis J. Rovegno, Alice J., Individually and as of the Estate of Rovegno, Marshall, Deceased v. Geppert Brothers, Inc., and Ward, Lewis J., in No. 80-2513’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2006
7 district · 3 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hanna v. Plumer · Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. · Streeter v. United States · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile there can be no rigid standard for categorizing the various maneuvers which might be classified as erratic operation of a motor vehicle in order to qualify as the necessary supplementary evidence, the controlling consideration is whether ‘the evidence and offers of proof present a picture of unfitness to drive sufficiently clear that that probative value of the evidence of drinking or intoxication outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in order to determine whether a federal court must apply the Pennsylvania rule on the admissibility of blood alcohol results, a federal judge would have to ask: does Pennsylvania exclude blood alcohol results in the absence of “other evidence” because drinking, standing alone, is not probative of a degree of intoxication which proves unfitness to drive, or does the Pennsylvania rule mean that drinking is not a material proposition that is provable to show negligence? As Professor Wellborn’s article demonstrates, it is frequently difficult to ascertain whether a particular rule is “only evidentiary or is meant to prescribe rights and obligations of the parties not related to factfinding.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although we are required by our decision in [Greiner], to apply [Pennsylvania law] in this appeal, Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that “[a]l-though relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ____” We observe that the Pennsylvania decision implicitly requires the same discretionary weighing required by Rule 403. Thus, in interpreting [Pennsylvania law], we may draw on our own decisions dealing with review of Rule 403 exercises.”
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.