264 Pa. Super. 354 - Scott v. Purcell’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2005
22 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 Buchanan v. Brentwood Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. · 226 Pa. Super. 215 - Roman Mosaic & Tile Co. v. Vollrath · Schwartz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority · Shechter v. SHECHTER · Gougher v. Hansler
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The case is otherwise with respect to unjust enrichment. In Buchanan v. Brentwood Federal Savings and Loan Association, [ 457 Pa. 135 , 320 A.2d 117 (1964)], the Supreme Court stated that the imposition of a constructive trust on the property in question would be proper if the appellants were able to show on remand that the appellees had been unjustly enriched; such a showing would amount to `a general assertion that the ends of public policy and substantial justice demand that a constructive trust be impressed.' Buchanan v. Brentwood Federal Savings and Loan Association, supra 457 Pa. at 155 , 320 A.2d at 128 . Recently, we said that to sustain a claim of unjust enrichment, `appellant must show that she wrongfully secured or passively received a benefit that it would be unconscionable for her to retain.' Roman Mosaic and Tile Co., Inc. v. Vollrath, 226 Pa.Super. 215, 218 , 313 A.2d 305, 307 (1973); See generally Moreland v. Metrovich, 249 Pa.Super. 88 , 375 A.2d 772 (1977); Kimball v. Barr Township, supra ; Restatement of Restitution §§ 160, 194 (1937). Here, appellant has made no showing that Oaklander Associates `wrongfully secured' the property in question, but he has shown that it `passively received a benefit that it would be unconscionable for [it] to retain.' The fact that Oaklander Associates may not on the present record be held to have known of Purcell's wrongful acts does not refute the basic point that it was given a chance to buy the property, only because Purc”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A modification of an agency relationship may occur where a principal acquiesces in conduct not included in the original authorization. See Restatement (Second) of Agency, supra, §§ 43, 94. The Comment to Section 43 adds: ‘Persons ordinarily express dissent to acts done on their behalf which they have not authorized or of which they do not approve.’ Restatement (Second) of Agency, supra, at 133.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“cannot recover under any view of the evidence. . . .”
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.