Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 Pa. Super. 522 - McCaulif v. Griffith

110 Pa. Super. 522 - McCaulif v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
October 1985
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 1985

2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

50193319401950196019701980decided

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 Vinnacombe v. Phila. Am. S. · First Nat. Bk. of Pittsburgh v. Baird · Philadelphia v. Reading Co. · Sargeant v. National Life Insurance · Leslie v. Catanzaro

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

  1. ““(e) Nor, where any party to a thing or contract in action is dead, . . . and his right thereto or therein has passed, either by his own act or by the act of the law, to a party on the record, who represents his interest in the subject in controversy, shall any surviving or remaining party to such thing or contract, or any other person whose interest shall be adverse to the said right of such deceased ... be a competent witness to any matter occurring before the death of said party . . .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The amendment of June 22, 1931, supra, gives the right, at the instance of defendant, to have joined, as additional defendants, persons whom he alleges are alone liable, or jointly or severally liable with him, for the cause of action declared on, and provides for the entry of judgments against such additional defendants. It, however, as indicated by its title was ‘to regulate procedure’ and not in any way to affect the competency of witnesses.””
    1 later decision 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.