Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 292 Pa. Super. 11 - Gillespie v. Vecenie

292 Pa. Super. 11 - Gillespie v. Vecenie’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
March 1994
most recently cited

23 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Socha v. Metz · Dolan v. Linton's Lunch · 279 Pa. Super. 382 - Mike v. Borough of Aliquippa · Burke v. Duquesne Light Co. · 263 Pa. Super. 37 - Atkins v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTH., ETC.

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(1) The terms ‘injury’ and ‘personal injury’, as used in this Act, shall be construed to mean an injury to an employee . . . arising in the course of his employment and related thereto. . . . The term ‘injury arising in the course of his employment’, as used in this article, shall not include an injury caused by an act of a third person intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him, and not directed against him as an employee or because of his employment; but shall include all other injuries sustained while the employee is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether upon the employer’s premises or elsewhere, and shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer’s business or affairs thereon, sustained by the employee, who though not so engaged, is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer’s business or affairs are being carried on, the employee’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Though, we find a cause of action stated against both defendants, we are foreclosed, by the record from giving the lower court definitive guidance. The record is somewhat contradictory and incomplete as to what action was taken pursuant to the [Worker’s Compensation Act] ... We are unable, from the state of the record, to determine whether Gillespie is barred by any agreement, from proceeding in tort against Transport. Nor is the record dispositive as to whether appellant and/or defenses by their failure to appeal rulings concerning a workman’s compensation claim ... When an injury had been compensated under the Act, then the Act, 77 P.S. § 481, would prohibit the claiming against the employer.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““When an injury has been compensated under the act, then the act, 77 P.S. §481, would prohibit the claiming against the employer. An employee may sue a third party whose conduct caused an injury; but neither the employee nor the third party may join an employer in such suit.” Gillespie at 18 , 436 A. 2d at 698. (citation omitted)”
    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.