Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 Pa. Super. 95 - Commonwealth v. Summons

157 Pa. Super. 95 - Commonwealth v. Summons’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
8
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably State v. Sheets (1980), 407 F. Supp. 414 - Kroungold v. Triester (1975)

21 state decisions

8019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Commonwealth v. Zasloff · Kneeland v. Emerton · Commonwealth v. Bruno · Gumpert's Estate · Bagley Co., Inc. v. Cameron

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

  1. “This [facial constitutional] question (perhaps because it suggests only one answer) has never been raised in an appellate court of this state. We find no merit in it. The word “isolated” is not a word of art or of technical meaning. In common as well as universal usage it means standing alone, detached, separate. It is the opposite or counterterm-the antonym-of “repeated” or “successive.” Whether sales of stock ... are isolated or repeated and successive transactions indicating a course of dealing must depend upon the facts of each case in the light of the purpose of the act.... [Wjhere sales ... recur within such reasonable time as to indicate an association of acts under one general purpose, such sales are not “isolated....””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The sales charged in the indictment upon which appellant was convicted were the only ones made in Cambria County. But there were many other sales of stock made by him in Clearfield County, and evidence of these was admissible to rebut the inference that the transactions in question were isolated and to establish a course of dealing.””
    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.