Majewski v. Lempka’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 1969 · most notably Maio v. Fahs (1940), Rau v. Manko (1940)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 Alperdt Et Ux. v. Paige · Weinberg v. Pavitt · 114 Pa. Super. 148 - Rudman Et Ux. v. City of Scranton · Ferguson v. Charis · Keck v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In behalf of the additional defendants it is further contended that the court below should have entered judgment n. o. v. in their favor because of the fact that the writs of scire facias whereby they were summoned alleged that they were solely liable, whereas the jury’s' verdict established that the original defendant was also responsible. They argue that the writ of scire facias is not only a method of bringing a party into court, but that it is also a pleading and must, therefore, state a good cause of action. Nunamaker v. Finnegan, 110 Pa.Super. 404 , 409, 168 A. 482 ; Rudman v. City of Scranton, 114 Pa.Super. 148 , 153, 173 A. 892 . It is urged, in view of the verdict finding her jo.intly liable, that the original defendant failed to state a good cause of action when she charged the additional defendants with sole liability. There is no merit in the argument. The evidence of the original defendant made out a prima facie case of sole liability on the part of the additional defendants, and it is of no ‘ moment that the jury, under all the evidence, found that all the defendants contributed to causal culpability. The'finding against her was in all probability based upon the testimony that was offered, respectively, by plaintiffs and by the additional defendants. She stated and offered testimony tending to prove that plaintiffs’ only cause of action was against the additional defendants, and the fact that plaintiffs and the additional defendants established a cause of actio”
3 later decisions 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.