Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 293 Pa. 90 - Ralph v. Deiley

Ralph v. Deiley’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
8
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

2 district · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Stonehedge Square Ltd. Partnership v. Movie Merchants, Inc. (1998), 454 Pa. Super. 468 - Stonehedge Square Ltd. Partnership v. Movie Merchants, Inc. (1996)

2 district · 45 state decisions

1601928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Auer v. Penn · Jenkins v. Root · Breuckmann v. Twibill · Whitcomb v. Brant · Rafferty v. Klein

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

  1. ““When the lessee quits the premises with an intention to give up all rights to them, and to disengage himself from liabilities springing from the contract of lease, to make his effort effectual he must procure the lessor’s assent, or, in other words, there must be a surrender. A surrender is the yielding up of an estate for years to him who has the immediate reversion, and the effect is to pass the estate of the tenant to the landlord, extinguishing the rent reserved: Milling v. Becker, 96 Pa. 182, 185 . Surrender is a contractual act, and it occurs only through the consent of both parties, evidenced by an express agreement or unequivocal act of the parties which implies that they have agreed to consider the surrender as being made: Felker v. Richardson, 32 Atl. 830, 831 , 67 N. H. 509, 510...... To show it [assent to or acceptance] there must be evidence of acts so inconsistent with the terms of the first lease that the relation of landlord and tenant, established by the reletting, could not be enforced under the terms of the first lease. Such acts would indicate as a logical and reasonably necessary result that the lessor intended to accept the surrender tendered by the lessees: Whitcomb v. Brant, 90 N. J. L. 245, 100 Atl. 175 .””
    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.