Kite v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * The law is clear that if a plaintiff receives his regular compensation during the period of his incapacity he may not recover for his loss of salary or wages unless he affirmatively shows that these payments were a gratuity from his employer: Antonelli v. Tumolo and Archangelo, 390 Pa. 68 , 132 A.2d 285 ; Pensak v. Peerless Oil Co., 311 Pa. 207 , 166 A. 792 ; Schwoerer v. City of Philadelphia, 167 Pa.Super. 356 , 74 A.2d 755 . Cf. Stevenson v. Pennsylvania Sports and Enterprises, Inc., 372 Pa. 157 , 93 A.2d 236 . In Pensak v. Peerless Oil Co., 311 Pa., at pages 209, 210, 166 A. at page 792 , supra, the Court said: “ ‘The item, wages * * * cannot be sustained. It is based on a loss of salary during the time plaintiff was incapacitated. But he did not lose any salary. It was paid to him. True he says it was a gift. * * * His salary was $85 per week and he received it. Characterizing as a gift the money paid to him does not make it so. To permit a recovery of money under the guise of wages lost would, with the facts as they here appear, open a wide door to misrepresentation and fraud in this class of cases.’ “In Stevenson v. Pennsylvania Sports and Enterprises, Inc., 372 Pa. at page 239 , 93 A.2d 236 , supra, the Court said: ‘ “Whether a plaintiff may recover loss of wages from a tortfeasor where the injured party has been paid the wages by his employer is to be determined by the evidence. The rule of law is clear: if the payments by the employer were a gratuity or gift,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kelly v. Fulkerson

2. ““Where a second actor has become aware of the existence of a potential danger created by the negligence of an original tortfeasor, and thereafter, by an independent act of negligence, brings about an accident, the first tortfeasor is relieved of liability, because the condition created by him was merely a circumstance of the accident and not its proximate cause”. (Italics supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Papa v. Pittsburgh Penn-Center Corp.

3. ““The law is clear that if a plaintiff receives his regular compensation during the period of his incapacity he may not recover for his loss of salary or wages unless he affirmatively shows that these payments were a gratuity from his employer.” (p. 351, 132 A.2d p. 689.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. Gerstenslager Co.