Brodsky v. Linder’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1981
3 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 Barnette v. Sayers · 166 Pa. Super. 57 - Kraft v. Michael Et Ux. · 163 Pa. Super. 352 - Tudesco Et Ux. v. Wilson · Sheffield v. Paul T. Stone, Inc. · Portner v. Tanner
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is true that at the end of the complaint plaintiff alleged that she had been 'damaged by defendants’ breach of contract,’ but in the body of the complaint it was made quite plain that the suit was based on the forfeiture clause of the contract, and that plaintiff claimed that a forfeiture had been worked by defendants’ default and that they should be required to pay the amount of the dishonored check.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]f the Purchaser shall fail to make full settlement, the deposit herein provided for may be forfeited at the option of the Seller. ...” (Emphasis added.)”
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.