357 Pa. Super. 85 - Veno v. Meredith’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Schoch v. First Fidelity Bancorporation (1990), 417 Pa. Super. 316 - Rutherfoord v. Presbyterian-University Hospital (1992)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 84 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 Geary v. United States Steel Corp. · Corabi v. Curtis Publishing Co. · 255 Pa. Super. 28 - Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc. · 350 Pa. Super. 183 - Darlington v. General Electric · 276 Pa. Super. 527 - Beckman v. Dunn
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“3 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 684 (1960). Moreover,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A simple expression of opinion based on disclosed or assumed nondefamatory facts is not itself sufficient for an action of defamation, no matter how unjustified and unreasonable the opinion may be or how derogatory it is. But an expression of opinion that is not based on disclosed or assumed facts and therefore implies that there are undisclosed facts on which the opinion is based, is treated differently. The difference lies in the effect upon the recipient of the communication. In the first case, the communication itself indicates to him that there is no defamatory factual statement. In the second, it does not, and if the recipient draws the reasonable conclusion that the derogatory opinion expressed in the comment must have been based on undisclosed defamatory facts, the defendant is subject to liability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen sufficient additional consideration is present, an employee should not be subject to discharge without just cause for a reasonable time. The length of time during which it would be unreasonable to terminate, without just cause, an employee who has given additional consideration should be commensurate with the hardship the employee has endured or the benefit he has bestowed.”
2 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.