134 Pa. Super. 477 - Commonwealth v. Levandowski’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 1980
15 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 In Re the Estate of Findlay · 124 Pa. Super. 277 - Commonwealth v. Dimatteo · 128 Pa. Super. 97 - Commonwealth v. Gantz · 116 Pa. Super. 520 - Dulsky v. Susquehanna Collieries Co. · 129 Pa. Super. 64 - Commonwealth v. Atherton
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The presumption of legitimacy stands until met with evidence which makes it clearly appear that the husband was not the father of the child: Commonwealth v. Carrasquilla, 191 Pa.Super. 14 , 155 A.2d 473 . However, in the words of Judge Cunningham in Commonwealth v. Levandowski, 134 Pa.Super. 477 , 4 A.2d 201 , appellant's "proposition that the Commonwealth was not entitled to have this case submitted to the jury if there was a possibility of access, no matter how remote, is no longer the law. In the colorful language of Mr. Justice Cardozo . . . the `rule of the four seas' was `exploded' two centuries ago. The modern rule . . . is that `countervailing evidence may shatter the presumption [of legitimacy] though the possibility of access is not susceptible of exclusion to the point of utter demonstration'. Legitimacy is not to be sustained `by a sacrifice of probabilities in a futile quest for certainty'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“proposition that the Commonwealth was not entitled to have this case submitted to the jury if there was a possibility of access, no matter how remote, is no longer the law. In the colorful language of Mr. Justice Cardozo . . . the `rule of the four seas' was `exploded' two centuries ago. The modern rule . . . is that `countervailing evidence may shatter the presumption [of legitimacy] though the possibility of access is not susceptible of exclusion to the point of utter demonstration'. Legitimacy is not to be sustained `by a sacrifice of probabilities in a futile quest for certainty'”
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.