283 Pa. Super. 93 - Fahringer v. Rinehimer’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 246 - Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co. (1992), 316 Pa. Super. 565 - Fish v. Gosnell (1983)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 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 FLICKINGER ESTATE v. Ritsky · Skoda v. West Penn Power Co. · Commonwealth v. Dickerson · 241 Pa. Super. 517 - Costa v. Lair · Gregorius v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is a difference to be noted between negligence and contributory negligence. Where the negligence of a defendant creates a risk of a particular harm, occurring in a particular manner, and the same harm is in fact brought about in another manner, through the operation of some intervening force which was not one of the hazards making up the original risk, the defendant normally is not relieved of responsibility by the intervention of the force, and is liable for the harm_ But where the negligence of the plaintiff creates a risk of a particular harm to him, occurring in a particular manner, and the same harm is in fact brought about by the intervention of a force which was not one of the original hazards, the plaintiff is not barred from recovery_”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The admission of photographs into evidence is within the discretion of the lower court. Nyce v. Muffley, 384 Pa. 107 , 119 A.2d 530 (1956); Piso v. Weirton Steel Co., 235 Pa.Super. 517 , 345 A.2d 728 (1975). Merely because a photograph is gruesome is not a reason to exclude it. Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 406 Pa. 102 , 176 A.2d 421 (1962). The court must consider whether the evidentiary value of the photograph outweighs the danger that it will upset the jury. Even when a witness has described an injury, a photograph may still have evidentiary value in that it may make the description more intelligible. West v. Morgan, 345 Pa. 61 , 27 A.2d 46 (1942).”
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.