234 Pa. Super. 441 - Freezer Storage, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
5 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 1991 · most notably Zapata v. Burns (1988), Howell Ex Rel. Howell v. Burk (1977)
5 district · 24 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 McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Reed v. Reed · Royster Guano Co v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Lemon v. Kurtzman · H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus Plaintiff’s alleged cause of action did not arise until she fell and sustained injury. Of course this was many years after the ten year period fixed by the statute had expired. She claims that the statute, in its application to her, amounts to a deprivation of due process, since, as she expresses it, the statute bars her cause of action before it has arisen. This formulation suggests a .misconception of the effect of the statute. It does not bar a cause of action; its effect, rather, is to prevent what might otherwise be a cause of action, from ever arising. Thus injury occurring more than ten years after the negligent act allegedly responsible for the harm, forms no basis for recovery. The injured party literally has no cause of action. The harm that has been done is damnum absque injuria — a wrong for which the law affords no redress. The function of the statute is thus rather to define substantive rights than to alter or modify a remedy. The Legislature is entirely at liberty to create new rights or abolish old ones as long as no vested right is disturbed.” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Reviewing the constitutionality of an Act of Assembly we are guided by well established principles. An Act is cloaked with a strong presumption of constitutionality, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192 (1973), and ‘will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution.’ Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 271 , 191 A.2d 835, 840 (1963). The burden of proof is on the party attacking the constitutionality of the statute, and all doubt must be resolved in favor of sustaining the legislation. Milk Control Comm. v Battista, 413 Pa. 652 , 198 A. 2d 840 (1964). “Appellant initially asserts that the Act in question is special legislation standing in violation of article III, section 32 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (‘The General Assembly shall pass no local or special law in any case which has been or can be provided for by general law . . .’. Pa. Const, art. III, section 32). It is, of course, ‘a fundamental principle of our constitutional form of government that the legislative power ought to be exercised in a general and impartial manner and that new law ought not be made in the individual case.’ Article III, section 32 was adopted ‘to put an end to the flood of privileged legislation for particular localities and for private purposes. . . .’ Haverford Township v. Siegle, 346 Pa. 1, 6 , 28 A.2d 786, 788 (1942). “Classification per se, however, is not inherently unconstitutional. ‘A classification in and of itself is not prohibited ... a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Equal Protection Clause of both constitutions does not deny the State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways, but does deny the right to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of the particular statute. The classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.”
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.