Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 Pa. Super. 117 - Levitt v. Patrick

2009 Pa. Super. 117 - Levitt v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably 2009 Pa. Super. 182 - US Bank N.A. v. Mallory (2009), In re Makowka (2014)

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

200200920102020decided

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 United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. · 441 Pa. Super. 281 - Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp. · Heaney v. Riddle · 299 Pa. Super. 260 - Mancine v. CONCORD-LIB. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N · In Re Iulo

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

  1. “[t]here are no outstanding claims remaining”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The holder of a bond and mortgage can proceed in rem or in personam to enforce his claim. He may proceed by an action of mortgage foreclosure or by an action on the bond which the mortgage secures. In actions of mortgage foreclosures the procedure is governed primarily by the Rules of Civil Procedure. An action of mortgage foreclosure is commenced by the filing of a complaint, Pa.R.C.P. 1143....[I]n a mortgage foreclosure action, ... the action is in rem and binds only the mortgage property.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a claim need not be discontinued with prejudice for this Court to have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.”
    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.