Antz v. GAF Materials Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict. Judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be entered only in a clear case where the facts are such that no two reasonable minds could fail to agree that the verdict was improper. An Appellate court will reverse a trial court ruling only if it finds an abuse of discretion or an error of law that controlled the outcome of the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc. · Portside Investors, L.P. v. Northern Insurance

2. “A contractual provision is unconscionable if: 1) one of the parties had no meaningful choice with respect to the provision, and 2) the provision unreasonably favors the other party. Witmer v. Exxon Corporation, 495 Pa. 540 , 434 A.2d 1222 (1981); Metalized Ceramics for Electrmics, Inc. v. National Ammonia Company, 444 Pa.Super. 238 , 663 A.2d 762 (1995); Denlinger, Inc. v. Dendler, 415 Pa.Super. 164 , 608 A.2d 1061 (1992); Moscatiello[ v. Pittsburgh Contractors Equip. Co.], supra [ 407 Pa.Super. 363 , 595 A.2d 1190 (1991)]; Germantown Manufacturing Co. v. Rawlinson, 341 Pa.Super. 42 , 491 A.2d 138 (1985); Hornberger[ v. General Motors Corp.], supra[, 929 F.Supp. 884 (E.D.Pa.1996)]. Whether a contractual provision is unconscionable is a question of law for the court. Denlinger, supra; Homberger, supra; Jim Dan, [Inc. v. O.M. Scott & Sons Co.,] supra[, 785 F.Supp. 1196 (W.D.Pa.1992)]. “In determining whether a clause is unconscionable, the court should consider whether, in light of the general commercial background and the commercial needs of a particular trade, the clause is so one-sided that it is unconscionable under the circumstances.” Jim Dan, 785 F.Supp. at 1200 , citing 13 Pa.C.S. § 2302 Comment 1.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 327 - Lytle v. CitiFinancial Services, Inc.