253 Pa. Super. 76 - Pugh v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably Pugh v. Holmes (1979), 326 Pa. Super. 496 - Sutliff v. Sutliff (1984)
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 California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java · Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc. · 10 Cal. 3d 616 - Green v. Superior Court · Ethel Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, Rudolph Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation, Stanley Gross v. First National Realty Corporation · Marini v. Ireland
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““had no obligations to the tenant other than those made expressly, and the tenant’s obligation to pay rent was independent of the landlord’s [covenants] . . . The doctrine of caveat emptor was fully applicable. The tenant’s only protections were to inspect the premises before taking possession or to extract express warranties from the landlord. It was assumed that landlords and tenants held equal bargaining power in arranging their rental agreements, and that the agrarian tenant had the ability to inspect the dwelling adequately and to make simple repairs in the buildings which possessed no modern conveniences such as indoor plumbing or electrical wiring. As agrarian society declined and population centers shifted from rural to urban areas, the common law concepts of landlord-tenant relationships did not change. Despite the facts that the primary purpose of the urban leasing arrangement was housing and not land and that the tenant could neither adequately inspect nor repair urban dwelling units, landlords still were not held to any implied warranties in the places they rented and tenants leased dwellings at their own risk.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pugh v. Holmes
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.