Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 Pa. Super. 215 - Terwilliger v. Kitchen

2001 Pa. Super. 215 - Terwilliger v. Kitchen’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Whitner v. Lojeski · Crowell v. City of Philadelphia · Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc. · Commonwealth v. Phillips · 455 Pa. Super. 158 - Soderberg v. Weisel

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

  1. “(1) Is a defendant entitled to summary judgment based solely on his own testimony, when the plaintiffs testimony differs as to material facts regarding whether plaintiff authorized or permitted defendant to operate her vehicle on the night in question? (2) Is 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1574 applicable where the circumstances of the case and the testimony of the vehicle owner do not establish that the owner authorized or permitted the unlicensed driver to operate her vehicle? (3) Pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1574, is an injured passenger vicariously liable to herself for the negligence of the driver of the vehicle and thus per se barred from pursuing a claim against the driver when the injured passenger owned the vehicle and “authorized or permitted” the driver to operate the vehicle knowing that he did not have a valid driver’s license? (4) Should defendant Leibfried’s negligence remain an issue for a jury to determine, for the purpose of apportioning liability only, with the jury not being instructed that Leibfried’s liability is imputed to plaintiff Sherri Price pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1574.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In all actions brought to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery by the plaintiff or his legal representative where such negligence was not greater than the causal negligence of the defendant or defendants against whom recovery is sought, but any damages sustained by the plaintiff shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.”
    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.