Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1979–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kravinsky v. Glovergreen2 sentences2023McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops, 325 Pa. Super. 340 , 343–44, 472 A.2d 1149, 1151 (1984) (en banc “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). 2023McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops, 325 Pa. Super. 340 , 343–44, 472 A.2d 1149, 1151 (1984) (en banc “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). | 8 | 9 |
Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.green2 sentences2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). 2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). | 6 | 6 |
Albert v. Altergreen2 sentences1995Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa.Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965).” Albert v. Alter, 252 Pa.Super. 203, 225 , 381 A.2d 459, 470 (1977). 1995Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa.Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965).” Albert v. Alter, 252 Pa.Super. 203, 225 , 381 A.2d 459, 470 (1977). | 5 | 5 |
Hoffman v. Brandywine Hospitalgreen2 sentences2023Hoffman v. Brandywine Hosp., 661 A.2d 397, 402 (Pa. Super. 1995) (superseded by statute on other grounds). -8- J-A10040-23 Here, Dr. Yarus opined during his deposition testimony that both Appellant’s enduring subjective complaints of pain, clicking, and stiffness and medical records describing a contusion of his right knee at initial presentation caused Dr. Yarus to “suspect” a derangement of the knee’s internal structures. 2005In Hoffman v. Brandywine Hospital, 443 Pa. Super 245, 249 , 661 A.2d 397, 399 (1995), decedent contracted HIV via blood transfusions administered during surgery. | 2 | 4 |
Vicari v. Spiegelgreen2 sentences2021Vicari v. Spiegel, 936 A.2d 503, 510-11 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted and formatting altered). 2020“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.’” Vicari, 936 A.2d at 510 -11 (quoting Eaddy v. Hamaty, 694 A.2d 639, 642 (Pa. Super. 1997)). | 2 | 3 |
Eaddy v. Hamatygreen2 sentences2021“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.” Eaddy v. Hamary, 694 A.2d 639 , 642 (Pa. Super 1997) (citation omitted). 2021“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.” Eaddy v. Hamary, 694 A.2d 639, 642 (Pa. Super 1997) (citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shopsgreen2 sentences2023McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops, 325 Pa. Super. 340 , 343–44, 472 A.2d 1149, 1151 (1984) (en banc “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). 2023McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops, 325 Pa. Super. 340 , 343–44, 472 A.2d 1149, 1151 (1984) (en banc “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). | 2 | 2 |
Hamil v. Bashlinegreen2 sentences1997An 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.” Id. at 21 , 396 A.2d at 1355-56 (1979). (citation omitted) Opinions predicated solely upon conjecture, in which the causal nexus is not sufficiently established, justify the entry of a nonsuit, since, as further held by the court in Kravinsky : “[I]t is the intent of our law that if the plaintiff’s . . . expert cannot form an opinion with suffic 1997An 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.” Id. at 21 , 396 A.2d at 1355-56 (1979). (citation omitted) Opinions predicated solely upon conjecture, in which the causal nexus is not sufficiently established, justify the entry of a nonsuit, since, as further held by the court in Kravinsky : “[I]t is the intent of our law that if the plaintiff’s . . . expert cannot form an opinion with suffic | 1 | 2 |
Mazzie, W. v. Lehigh Valley Hospitalgreen1 sentence2024Mazzie, 257 A.3d at 87-88 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rolon, F. v. Davies, T.green1 sentence2020However, “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.” Rolon v. Davies, 232 A.3d 773, 777 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kravinsky v. Glovergreen2 sentences2023McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops, 325 Pa. Super. 340 , 343–44, 472 A.2d 1149, 1151 (1984) (en banc “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). 2023McCann v. Amy Joy Donut Shops, 325 Pa. Super. 340 , 343–44, 472 A.2d 1149, 1151 (1984) (en banc “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). | 1 | 9 |
Hoffman v. Brandywine Hospitalgreen2 sentences2023Hoffman v. Brandywine Hosp., 661 A.2d 397, 402 (Pa. Super. 1995) (superseded by statute on other grounds). -8- J-A10040-23 Here, Dr. Yarus opined during his deposition testimony that both Appellant’s enduring subjective complaints of pain, clicking, and stiffness and medical records describing a contusion of his right knee at initial presentation caused Dr. Yarus to “suspect” a derangement of the knee’s internal structures. 2005In Hoffman v. Brandywine Hospital, 443 Pa. Super 245, 249 , 661 A.2d 397, 399 (1995), decedent contracted HIV via blood transfusions administered during surgery. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moyer v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). 2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). | 6 | 1979–2005 |
Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
green
2 sentences2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). 2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). | 6 | 1979–2005 |
Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co.
green
2 sentences2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). 2005An expert fails this standard of certainty if she 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.” Niggel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 219 Pa. Super. 353, 355 , 281 A.2d 718,719 (1971) (see also, Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 376 Pa. 497 , 103 A.2d 681 (1954); Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co., 286 Pa. 199 , 133 A. 256 (1926); Moyer v. Ford Motor Co., 205 Pa. Super. 384 , 209 A.2d 43 (1965)). | 6 | 1979–2005 |
Marlowe v. Lehigh Township
green
1 sentence2011As was explained in Kravinsky v. Glover, 396 A.2d 1349, 1356 (Pa. Super. 1979): “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.” . “[A] witness who demonstrates by his own testimony that he has no experience or special knowledge of the matter at issue is incompetent as an expert.” Marlowe v. Lehigh Twp., 441 A.2d 497 (Pa. Commw. 1982). . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mitzelfelt v. Kamrin
green
2 sentences1997An 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.” Id. at 21 , 396 A.2d at 1355-56 (1979). (citation omitted) Opinions predicated solely upon conjecture, in which the causal nexus is not sufficiently established, justify the entry of a nonsuit, since, as further held by the court in Kravinsky : “[I]t is the intent of our law that if the plaintiff’s . . . expert cannot form an opinion with suffic 1997An 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.” Id. at 21 , 396 A.2d at 1355-56 (1979). (citation omitted) Opinions predicated solely upon conjecture, in which the causal nexus is not sufficiently established, justify the entry of a nonsuit, since, as further held by the court in Kravinsky : “[I]t is the intent of our law that if the plaintiff’s . . . expert cannot form an opinion with suffic | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.