Eaddy v. Hamaty’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 2000 Pa. Super. 161 - Miller v. Sacred Heart Hospital (2000), Corrado v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (2001)
37 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 Marks v. Tasman · Mitzelfelt v. Kamrin · 263 Pa. Super. 8 - Kravinsky v. Glover · 379 Pa. Super. 313 - McCain v. Pennbank · 443 Pa. Super. 245 - Hoffman v. Brandywine Hospital
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the physician owed a duty to the patient; (2) the physician breached that duty; (3) the breach of duty was the proximate cause of, or a substantial factor in, bringing about the harm suffered by the patient, and (4) the damages suffered by the patient were a direct result of that harm.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]fter the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law (1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report, or (2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““An expert fails this standard of certainty if he testifies ‘that the alleged cause “possibly,” or “could have” led to the result, that it “could very properly account” for the result, or even that it was “very highly probable” that it caused the result.’ Kravinsky v. Glover, 263 Pa. Super. 8, 21 , 396 A.2d 1349, 1356 (1979). (citations omitted)” Eaddy, 694 A.2d at 642 .”
2 later decisions 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.