320 Pa. Super. 206 - Kehoe v. Gilroy’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2010
19 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 Shapiro v. Shapiro · Leedom v. Thomas · Stahl v. First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co. · Brodt v. Brown · In Re Estate of Marushak
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The party asserting laches must show, first, a delay arising from the other party’s failure to exercise due diligence, and second, prejudice from the delay. ... It is not enough to show delay arising from failure to exercise due diligence; for “laches will not be imputed where no injury has resulted to the other party by reason of the delay.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““While the defense of laches may be raised by preliminary objections, laches should never be declared unless the existence thereof is clear on the face of the record.” Estate of Marushak, 488 Pa. 607, 610 , 413 A.2d 649, 651 (1980) (citation omitted). This means that the party asserting laches must show, first, a delay arising from the other party’s failure to exercise due diligence, and second, prejudice from the delay. Id. See also Leedom v. Thom os, 473 Pa. 193, 200 , 373 A.2d 1329, 1332 (1977) (collecting cases). Whether this burden has been met is a factual question, answered by examining the circumstances of the particular case. Leedom v. Thomas, supra, 473 Pa. at 200-201 , 373 A.2d at 1332-1333 . See Shapiro v. Shapiro, 424 Pa. 120, 131 , 224 A.2d 164, 170 (1966) (laches determined only after all circumstances of case examined); Stahl v. First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Co., 411 Pa. 121, 128 , 191 A.2d 386, 390 (1963) (well-settled that complaint will be dismissed on preliminary objections only if laches clearly apparent) (collecting cases).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“some change in the condition or relations of the parties [occurred] during the period the complainant unreasonably failed to act.”
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.