Vereb v. Markowitz’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 1984 · most notably Connolly v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. (1966), Dorsey v. Yoder Company (1971)
9 federal appellate · 24 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 Dahlstrom v. Shrum · Majewski v. Lempka · Londrino v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States · Wermeling v. SHATTUCK
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The accident occurred about 6:30 P.M., November 10, 1951, on Main Street in the Borough of Munhall . . . . Main Street, from the testimony, was a very busy congested street, especially on Saturday evenings.. . . While there was testimony . . . indicating that the [defendant's] car came to a stop immediately or within a few feet from the point of its impact with the boy, [the eyewitness] testified that [defendant] was travelling 35 or 40 miles per hour and that this speed was not decreased at any time . . . [defendant] was bound to realize that maintaining a speed of 40 miles per hour, the rate at which the jury under the testimony could find he was travelling, in the curtailed space for vehicular traffic, might cause injury to others, although he could not foresee the exact manner in which it might occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... [N]o fact based on oral testimony is incontrovertible until it receives the imprimatur of a jury’s acceptance .... Vereb v. Markowitz, 379 Pa. 344, 348 , 108 A.2d 774 .”
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.