404 Pa. Super. 426 - Patten v. Vose’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2021
19 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 Leedom v. Thomas · Kay v. Kay · Miller v. Hawkins · 391 Pa. Super. 537 - Lipschutz v. Lipschutz · 379 Pa. Super. 361 - Jackman v. Pelusi
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The party asserting laches must show, first, a delay arising from the other party’s failure to exercise due diligence, and second, prejudice from the delay.... It is not enough to show delay arising from failure to exercise due diligence; for ‘laches will not be imputed where no injury has resulted to the other party by reason of the delay.’ _ (Citations omitted.)_ Laches requires not only a passage of time, but also a resultant prejudice to the party asserting the doc-trine_ (Citations omitted.)_ [and] is based on ‘some change in the condition or relations of the parties which occurs during the period the complainant unreasonably failed to act.’ _ (Citations omitted.)_ ‘[T]he burden of proof with respect to the doctrine [of laches] is upon the party asserting the defense; in order to meet this burden, the party alleging the delay must demonstrate prejudice.’ ... (Citations omitted.)‘[D]elay alone, no matter how long, does not itself establish laches.’_ (Citation omitted.)”
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.