138 Pa. Super. 90 - Massiah v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
September 1983
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bowman v. Gum, Inc. · Mannella v. Pittsburgh · Trabue v. Walsh · Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Pittston Coal Mining Co. · Berlin Smokeless Coal & Clay Co. v. Rohm
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.
““Had appellee, because of interpretation of the plans and specifications by defendants that the wooden forms in controversy were embraced in the contract, refused to proceed with the work, he would have laid himself open to an action of damages for breach of contract if appellants’ interpretations were sustained. The appellants cannot avoid liability for the payment of this extra work where they compelled appellee to perform the same under the theory that it was part of the original contract: Jackson et al. v. McKeesport, Appellant, 305 Pa. 198 , 157 A. 472 ; approved in Mannella v. City of Pittsburgh, Appellant, 334 Pa. 396, 402 , 6 A.2d 70 . Where there is uncertainty as to what specifications are covered by a written contract, it may be explained by parol evidence and then becomes a question for the jury: Kendig v. Roberts, 187 Pa. 339 , 40 A. 1022 .” Id. 138 Pa.Super. at 95-96 , 10 A.2d at 82 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.