300 Pa. Super. 11 - Samuels v. Hendricks’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2016
16 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 Meehan v. Cheltenham Township · GOLDMAN v. McShain · Freach v. Commonwealth · Duquesne Slag Products Co. v. Lench · Rufo v. the Bastian-Blessing 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Goldman, the plaintiffs sought specific performance of a contract to build and operate a theater. The lower court held that they had not alleged an enforceable contract, thereby precluding equitable relief or damages at law. Instead of entering judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, the lower court certified the case to the law side of the court to enable plaintiffs to proceed under a theory of restitution to recover their expenses incurred in contemplation of the project. In denying the motion to quash the appeal, our Supreme Court reasoned that the order was final because its practical effect was to deny recovery upon the contract. 432 Pa. at 64-65 , 247 A.2d at 456-457 . Similarly, in McCahill, the Court held that a transfer order was final because its effect was to deny plaintiffs’ action to quiet title to a building. 421 Pa. at 236 , 219 A.2d at 308 . By contrast, in the present case, the lower court, in the exercise of its discretion, Long John Silver’s, Inc. v. Fiore, supra [ 255 Pa.Super. 183 , 386 A.2d 569 ], determined that appellant could be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the breach of his contract with Mr. Hendricks. Consequently, because the practical effect of the order is not to preclude appellant from presenting the merits of his claim, it is not final and appealable. Toll v. Toll, 293 Pa.Superior Ct. 549, 555, 439 A.2d 712, 715 (1981). Samuels v. Hendricks, supra 300 Pa.Super. at 17 , 445 A.2d at 1276-77 .”
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.