Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 F.2d 849 - Leposki v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

Leposki v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

297 F.2d 849 · 1962

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2011

11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

90196219701980199020002010decided

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 McNello v. John B. Kelly, Inc. · Stark v. Lehigh Foundries, Inc. · Thornton v. Weaber · 159 Pa. Super. 513 - Diehl v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Pennsylvania, an intervening negligent act by a third person does not, in all cases, constitute a superseding cause relieving an antecedent wrongdoer from liability for negligently creating a dangerous condition. The act is superseding only if it was so extraordinary as not to have been reasonably foreseeable. [Citations omitted].” Leposki v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 297 F.2d 849, 850 (3 Cir. 1962).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Should the defendant be excused from liability to the plaintiffs by the intervening act of the boy in igniting the gasoline as he did? Could the defendant reasonably foresee that this might happen? * * * If you decide that it could, you may find for the plaintiffs. If it could not have been anticipated or foreseen, your verdict should be for the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.