Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 360 Pa. 594 - Walker v. Saricks

Walker v. Saricks’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
3
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Waldman v. Shoemaker (1951), Bardwell v. the Willis Company (1953)

75 state decisions

340194819501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc. · McCormack v. Jermyn · Martin & Monroe v. Berens · Irvin v. Irvin · Union Storage Co. ex rel. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. Speck

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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Grubb v. Rockey, 366 Pa. 592, 597 , 79 A. 2d 255 , we said: ‘The modern Pennsylvania Parol Evidence Rule is well stated by Mr. Justice Stearne in Walker v. Saricks, 360 Pa. 594, 598 , 63 A. 2d 9 : “This Court said in Gianni v. R. Russell & Co., Inc., 281 Pa. 320, 323 , 126 A. 791 : ‘Where parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only, evidence of their agreement: [citing cases]. All preliminary negotiations, conversations and verbal agreements are merged in and superseded by the subsequent written contract. . . and unless fraud, accident or mistake be averred, the writing constitutes the agreement between the parties, and its terms cannot be added to nor subtracted from by parol evidence: [citing cases].’ ” ’ See also: O’Brien et al. v. O’Brien, supra; Bosker v. Lewis, 383 Pa. 507 , 119 A. 2d 67 ; Keleher v. LaSalle College, 394 Pa. 545 , 147 A. 2d 835 .””
    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.