302 Pa. Super. 235 - Miller v. Hurst’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon (1986), Stanton Brooks 82-3364 82-3380 v. Astra Pharmaceutical Products Inc 82-3364 82-3380 (1983)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 56 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 Feingold v. Bell of Pennsylvania · T. C. R. Realty, Inc. v. Cox · Majors v. Brodhead Hotel · Jardine v. Upper Darby Lodge No. 1973 · E. J. McAleer & Co. v. Iceland Products, Inc.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any dog to fail to keep at all times such dog either (1) confined within the premises of the owner, or (2) firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured, or (3) under the reasonable control of some person, or when engaged in lawful hunting or field training accompanied by an owner or handler.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“... adopt[ed] the requirement of the statute as the standard for determining whether a person ha[d] complied with the common law duty to exercise ordinary care. ****** [We went on to hold that, although some states ha[d] gone further and imposed absolute liability for damages caused by roving dogs, we f[ou]nd it improvident and unnecessary to effect such a monumental change without legislative action. The legislature in Pennsylvania [was observed to] ha[ve] enacted a Dog Law which require[d] that owners of dogs prevent their animals from running at large, but it ha[d] not yet imposed absolute liability upon an owner who violate[d] such law. Therefore, we d[id] not usurp the function and prerogative of the legislature. We h[e]ld merely that violation of the legislatively enacted Dog Law is negligence per se. 8 This, we believe[d], [wa]s consistent with the intent of the legislature and also with the holdings of courts of other jurisdictions having similar laws.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“An order refusing to remove a compulsory nonsuit, contrary to an order refusing to award a new trial, is a final, judicial determination that as a matter of law the plaintiff has no cause of action on which recovery can be had. In this respect it is comparable to an order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to a complaint and dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.”
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.