414 Pa. Super. 160 - Dudley v. USX Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 130 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Albright v. Abington Memorial Hospital (1997), 447 Pa. Super. 575 - Hunger v. Grand Central Sanitation (1996)
4 federal appellate · 130 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 Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co. · Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co. · Carrender v. Fitterer · Evans v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. · Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Initially, it must be determined whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. If so, the second step is to determine whether there is any discrepancy as to any facts material to the case. Finally, it must be determined whether, in granting summary judgment, the trial court has usurped improperly the role of the jury by resolving any material issues of fact.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“Wanton misconduct ... means that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character, in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of [Wells Fargo] based solely upon Wells Fargo’s own testimonial affidavit in violation of Pennsylvania’s Nanty-Glo Rule? B. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo when there are disputed issues of material fact, including the amount purportedly owed to Wells Fargo that a federal court found in a related action precluded summary judgment? ■ - C. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo prior to the- exchange - of any discovery in the .case? D.Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment m favor of Wells Fargo by failing to apply Missouri law?”
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.