Fine v. Soifer’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 1982 · most notably 302 Pa. Super. 235 - Miller v. Hurst (1982), Murray v. Pittsburgh Athletic Co. (1936)
2 federal appellate · 35 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 Cleary v. Quaker City Cab Co. · Sauber v. Nouskajian Et Ux. · Bowers' Estate · Finch v. Conrade's · Hartman v. Pittsburgh Incline Plane 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When examining this case, several things must be remembered. In the first place, it is well known that the great Gibson was traditionally opposed to any change of practice which, in his opinion, encroached upon the sacred institution of trial by jury. As early as 1822, in Jones v. Wildes, 8 S. & R. 150, Justice Gibson wrote an opinion reversing a judgment for defendant on an instructed verdict, where he expressed the view that a Pennsylvania judge had no power to give binding instructions on the law, no matter what the state of facts before him might be, — a view long since exploded.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The real hardship to defendant is in treating a compulsory nonsuit under the statute after plaintiff’s evidence is all in, as an ordinary nonsuit and not as a demurrer to evidence, which it really is, and which ought to be a bar to another action.””
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.