244 Pa. Super. 447 - Foerst v. Rotkis’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably 293 Pa. Super. 189 - First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. v. Lehr (1981), 258 Pa. Super. 261 - Fidelity Bank v. Act of America, Inc. (1978)
32 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 D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. of Ohio v. Frick Co. · Wenger v. Ziegler · 239 Pa. Super. 372 - Greenwood v. Kadoich · Wolgin v. Mickman · Cheltenham National Bank v. Snelling
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is axiomatic that one who petitions to open a confessed judgment must act promptly and aver a meritorious defense. Wenger v. Ziegler, 424 Pa. 268 , 226 A.2d 653 (1967); Walnut-Juniper Co. v. McKee, Berger & Mansueto, Inc., 236 Pa.Super. 1 , 344 A.2d 549 (1975); Chelten ham Nat. Bank v. Snelling, 230 Pa.Super. 498 , 326 A.2d 557 (1974); Ritchey v. Mats, 227 Pa.Super. 33 , 324 A.2d 518 (1974). And it is equally true that such a petition is an appeal to the court’s equitable powers, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and a reviewing court will reverse the determination of the lower court only for a clear and manifest abuse of discretion. Triangle Building Supplies and Lumber Co. v. Zerman, 242 Pa.Super. 315 , 363 A.2d 1287 (Jacobs, J., filed 9/27/76), Cheltenham Nat. Bank v. Snelling, supra; Bucks County Bank & Trust Co. v. DeGroot, 226 Pa.Super. 419 , 313 A.2d 357 (1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If the appellant’s statement as to the distance between their and the appellees’ restaurant is accepted as true by a jury then a valid and complete defense to the judgment would have been advanced. The matter is in controversy. The appellants have stated that the distance was less than a mile, the appellees testified that the distance was greater than a mile. . . . The function of our court is not to weigh the evidence in support of the defense, but merely to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury. Wolgin v. Mickman, 233 Pa. Super. 218, 222 , 335 A.2d 824, 826 (1975) citing Ritchey v. Mars, 227 Pa.Super. 33 , 36 n.4, 324 A.2d 513 , 515 n.4 (1974).”
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.