Farrington v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2015
10 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 Schuylkill R. v. Harris · Hineline v. the General State Auth. · 10 Pa. Commw. 301 - Exxon Corp. v. Commonwealth · Brown v. Corey & Peterson · Monongahela Navigation Co. v. Blair
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In light of its comprehensive treatment of all aspects of condemnation, if the legislature had intended that appeals from awards of boards of view could be withdrawn only with the consent of the opposing party, it could have so provided. The legislature did so provide in dealing with appeals from awards of arbitrators. While we recognize that an award under compulsory arbitration differs from that under condemnation in that judgment may be entered immediately on an arbitrators’ award only if no appeal is taken within the statutory period, for our purposes, this is a distinction without a difference. In not imposing limitations on the withdrawals of appeals under the Eminent Domain Code, it seems clear that the legislature did not intend that any exist. In addition, our Rules of Appellate Procedure reflect the liberal right accorded appellants in discontinuing appeals. Pa.R.A.P. 1973(a) provides: An appellant may discontinue an appeal or other matter as to all appellees as of course at any time prior to argument, or thereafter by leave of court upon application. .; . The fact that eminent domain cases are heard de novo in the Court of Common Pleas should not affect the right of an appellant to withdraw his appeal without the consent of the opposite party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]f one party appeals the other need not. The cause is tried de novo on the appeal. ... If the successful party may appeal, and, after the twenty days have elapsed, discontinue his appeal, he may thereby deprive his adversary of the retrial to which he is entitled. If such a practice were tolerated it would lead to oppression and fraud.”
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.