Raw v. Lehnert’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 361 Pa. Super. 473 - Soja v. Factoryville Sportsmen's Club (1987), 299 Pa. Super. 312 - General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Flamini (1982)
43 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 Gilbert v. Korvette's Inc. · Dombrowski v. Philadelphia · Linett v. Linett · Prynn Estate · Hessenbruch v. Markle
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“appellants may not maintain at the same time in separate counts of one action, or in two different suits claims for rescission of a contract and restitution on the one hand and for damages for breach of the same contract together with expectation interest, on the other hand. These remedies are essentially inconsistent. Pittsburgh Union Stockyards [ Company ] v. Pittsburgh Joint Stock Company , 309 Pa. 314 , 163 A. 668 (1932) ; Emery v. Third National Bank of Pittsburgh , 308 Pa. 504 , 162 A. 281 (1932) ; Clement Martin Inc. v. Gussey , 191 Pa.Super. 464 , 157 A.2d 412 (1959). One may not terminate contractual obligations and seek the return of his consideration based upon the other party's promise through an action for rescission and restitution and at the same time seek the full benefits of that promise through an action for breach.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is clear that Hessenbruch stands for the proposition that the defense of lis pendens is not to be thwarted by technical differences between the two questions in question. The plea of lis pendens is therefore properly raised when the parties, the causes of action, and the relief sought are either “substantially” or, as the majority indicates, “precisely” the same in both actions. Id. (J. Price, dissenting).”
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.