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.
19 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Woodard v. Chatterjeegreen2 sentences2025See Woodard v. Chatterjee, 827 A.2d 433, 445 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing comment to Rule 4003.5(c) for proposition that the rule is intended “to prevent incomplete or ‘fudging’ of reports which would fail to reveal fully the facts and opinions of the expert or his grounds therefor”); see also Jones v. Constantino, [ 631 A.2d 1289, 1294 (Pa.Super.] 1993) (noting the fair scope rule “disfavors unfair and prejudicial surprise”). 2021See Woodard v. Chatterjee, 827 A.2d 433, 445 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing comment to Rule 4003.5(c) for proposition that the rule is intended “to prevent incomplete or ‘fudging’ of reports which would fail to reveal fully the facts and opinions of the expert or his grounds therefor”); see also Jones v. Constantino, 429 Pa.Super. 73 , 631 A.2d 1289, 1294 (1993) (noting the fair scope rule “disfavors unfair and prejudicial surprise”). | 5 | 6 |
Jones v. Constantinogreen2 sentences2025See Woodard v. Chatterjee, 827 A.2d 433, 445 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing comment to Rule 4003.5(c) for proposition that the rule is intended “to prevent incomplete or ‘fudging’ of reports which would fail to reveal fully the facts and opinions of the expert or his grounds therefor”); see also Jones v. Constantino, [ 631 A.2d 1289, 1294 (Pa.Super.] 1993) (noting the fair scope rule “disfavors unfair and prejudicial surprise”). 2021See Woodard v. Chatterjee, 827 A.2d 433, 445 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing comment to Rule 4003.5(c) for proposition that the rule is intended “to prevent incomplete or ‘fudging’ of reports which would fail to reveal fully the facts and opinions of the expert or his grounds therefor”); see also Jones v. Constantino, 429 Pa.Super. 73 , 631 A.2d 1289, 1294 (1993) (noting the fair scope rule “disfavors unfair and prejudicial surprise”). | 5 | 5 |
Whitaker v. Frankford Hospitalgreen2 sentences2023Therefore, the opposing party must be prejudiced as a result of the testimony going beyond the fair scope of the expert’s report before admission of the testimony is considered reversible error. -15- J-A05037-23 Whitaker, 984 A.2d at 522 (citation omitted). 2021“In applying the fair scope rule, we focus on the word ‘fair.’” Whitaker, 984 A.2d at 522 (quoting Coffey, 764 A.2d at 620-21 ). | 1 | 3 |
Coffey v. Minwax Co., Inc.green2 sentences2021“In applying the fair scope rule, we focus on the word ‘fair.’” Whitaker, 984 A.2d at 522 (quoting Coffey, 764 A.2d at 620-21 ). 2021“Departure from the expert’s report becomes a concern if the trial testimony ‘would prevent the adversary from preparing a meaningful response, or which would mislead the adversary as to the nature of the response.’” Id. (quoting Coffey, 764 A.2d at 621 ). | 1 | 2 |
Walsh v. Kubiakgreen2 sentences2020“The admission of expert testimony is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose rulings thereon will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Woodard v. Chatterjee, 827 A.2d 433, 440 (Pa.Super. 2003) (quoting Walsh v. Kubiak, 661 A.2d 416, 419 (Pa.Super. 1995) (en banc)). 2003The fair scope rule, addressed specifically in Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(c), “provides that an expert witness may not testify on direct examination concerning matters which are either inconsistent with or go beyond the fair scope of matters testified to in discovery proceedings or included in a separate report.” Walsh, 661 A.2d at 420 . | 1 | 2 |
Christiansen v. Silfiesgreen1 sentence2026See Christiansen v. Silfies, 667 A.2d 396, 402 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“The fair scope inquiry involves a determination of whether the expert report provides sufficient notice of the expert’s theory to enable the opposing party to prepare a rebuttal witness”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). - 14 - J-A20042-25 error alleged [to be] attributable, not to the [trial] court, but to the party seeking relief.” Claudio, 831 A.2d at 141 . | 1 | 1 |
Claudio v. Dean MacHine Co.green1 sentence2026See Christiansen v. Silfies, 667 A.2d 396, 402 (Pa. Super. 1995) (“The fair scope inquiry involves a determination of whether the expert report provides sufficient notice of the expert’s theory to enable the opposing party to prepare a rebuttal witness”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). - 14 - J-A20042-25 error alleged [to be] attributable, not to the [trial] court, but to the party seeking relief.” Claudio, 831 A.2d at 141 . | 1 | 1 |
Expressway 95 Business Center, LP v. Bucks County Board of Assessmentgreen1 sentence2014See Expressway v. Bucks County Bd. of Assess., 921 A.2d 70, 78-79 (Pa. Commw. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Dible v. Vagleygreen2 sentences1998In applying the fair scope rule, we focus on the word “fair.” Jones v. Constantino, 429 Pa.Super. 73 , 631 A.2d 1289, 1294-95 (1993) (quoting Dible v. Vagley, 417 Pa.Super. 302 , 612 A.2d 493, 499 (1992)). 1998In applying the fair scope rule, we focus on the word “fair.” Jones v. Constantino, 429 Pa.Super. 73 , 631 A.2d 1289, 1294-95 (1993) (quoting Dible v. Vagley, 417 Pa.Super. 302 , 612 A.2d 493, 499 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilkes-Barre Iron & Wire Works, Inc. v. Pargas of Wilkes-Barre, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023In Wilkes– Barre Iron & Wire Works, Inc. v. Pargas of Wilkes–Barre, Inc., 348 Pa.Super. 285 , 502 A.2d 210 (1985), this Court explained that: [I]t is impossible to formulate a hard and fast rule for determining when a particular expert's testimony exceeds the fair scope of his or her pretrial report. 2023In Wilkes– Barre Iron & Wire Works, Inc. v. Pargas of Wilkes–Barre, Inc., 348 Pa.Super. 285 , 502 A.2d 210 (1985), this Court explained that: [I]t is impossible to formulate a hard and fast rule for determining when a particular expert's testimony exceeds the fair scope of his or her pretrial report. | 5 | 2019–2023 |