Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 PASUPER 616 - Bacsick v. Barnes

Bacsick v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
5
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably 252 Pa. Super. 203 - Albert v. Alter (1977), 244 Pa. Super. 118 - Lambert v. PBI INDUSTRIES (1976)

38 state decisions

16019751980199020002010decided

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 FLICKINGER ESTATE v. Ritsky · Karcesky v. Laria · Rinaldi v. Levine · GAGLIANO v. Ditzler · DeLuca v. Manchester Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co.

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

  1. ““It appears that the ‘hills and ridges’ doctrine may be applied only in cases where the snow and ice complained of are the result of an entirely natural accumulation, following a recent snowfall. Thus, the rule of Rinaldi v. Levine, supra, is predicated on the assumption that ‘[t]hese formations are natural phenomena incidental to our climate.’ Rinaldi v. Levine, supra at 78 , 176 A.2d at 625 , quoting Whitton v. H. A. Gable Co., supra at 431, 200 A. at 645. (emphasis supplied) In the instant case, evidence was received tending to prove that the snow bank which blocked Mrs. Bacsick’s access to the side-”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]his general “hills and ridges” rule is subject to a number of [other] significant exceptions. Thus, proof of hills and ridges is not required when the hazard is not the result of a general slippery condition prevailing in the community, but of a localized patch of ice. Tonik v. Apex Garages, Inc., 442 Pa. 373 , 275 A.2d 296 (1971); Williams v. Schultz, 429 Pa. 429 , 240 A.2d 812 (1968). Nor is proof of hills and ridges required when an icy condition is caused by the defendant’s neglect, as where a city maintains a defective hydrant, water pipe, drain, or spigot. Ward v. Pittsburgh, 353 Pa. 156 , 44 A.2d 553 (1945).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In the instant case, the evidence was such that the jurors might easily have differed as to whether or not [the defendants] were negligent in allowing the accumulation of snow to remain on or along part of the sidewalk, as to whether [the plaintiffs] act of walking along Fifteenth Avenue carrying a bundle amounted to contributory negligence, and as to whether the accident occurred because [the plaintiff] slipped and fell into [the car’s] path or because [the driver of the car] ran her down.”
    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.