Smith v. Dale’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently August 1992 · most notably White v. Alston (1974), 328 Pa. Super. 357 - Chervenak, Keane & Co. v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates, Inc. (1984)
60 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 Scott v. McEwing · Markofski v. Yanks · Vallish v. Rapoport · Horn v. Witherspoon · Breden v. Gilliland
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under the Act of May 20, 1891, P. L. 101, §1, 12 PS §1100, in all cases involving the application for the opening, vacating and striking off of judgments of any kind, a party aggrieved by the decision of the court may appeal at that stage of the proceeding. If no such appeal is taken and the judgment involved is one entered by amicable confession, upon warrant of attorney or by default, the order opening the judgment or discharging the rule to open is interlocutory in nature, rendered in an equitable proceeding and may be fully reviewed by the court at a subsequent term. Under such circumstances the discharge of the rule to open judgment will not prevent the court from entertaining a renewal of the application to open at a subsequent term. See Home B. & L. Assn. v. Houlihan, 373 Pa. 43 , 95 A. 2d 189 (1953); Markofski v. Yanks, 297 Pa. 74 , 146 Atl. 569 (1929); Trescott v. Co-operative Building Bk., 215 Pa. 438 , 64 Atl. 630 (1906) and Kozuhowski & Reuss v. Snigel & Snigel, 90 Pa. Superior Ct. 75 (1927). The rule against opening, amending or vacating a judgment after the expiration of the term does not apply to interlocutory orders or to judgments by default. See Riegel v. Wilson, 60 Pa. 388,394 (1869); Breden v. Gilliland, 67 Pa. 34 (1871). Therefore, the court en banc had the power and authority to fully review the order discharging the rule to show cause and under the facts such action was clearly indicated.” (Emphasis from text at page 295.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If, after the filing and service of the answer, the moving party does not within fifteen days: (a) Proceed by rule or by agreement of counsel to take depositions on disputed issues of fact; or (b) Order the cause for argument on petition and answer (in which event all averments of fact responsive to the petition and properly pleaded in the answer shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of the rule); the respondent may take a rule as of course on the moving party to show cause why he should not proceed as above. If after hearing the rule shall be made absolute by the court, and the petitioner shall not proceed, as above provided, within fifteen days thereafter, the respondent may order the cause for argument on petition and answer, in which event all averments of fact responsive to the petition and properly pleaded in the answer shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of the rule.”
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.