417 Pa. Super. 371 - Kapres v. Heller’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2016
15 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 Penn Center House, Inc. v. Hoffman · Kuhns v. Brugger · Congini by Congini v. PORTERSVILLE ETC. · Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon · 382 Pa. Super. 108 - Overly v. Kass
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he.. .intentionally and knowingly furnishes... any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to a person who is less than 21 years of age.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“... I find particularly inexplicable and disturbing the majority's reasoning on page 5 regarding the criminal liability of underage drinkers and those who would facilitate their crime by furnishing them with intoxicants. The majority states: The legal drinking age in Pennsylvania is 21 years of age, and pursuant to the Crimes Code a person under 21 commits a summary offense if he attempts to purchase, purchases, consumes or possesses. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308. When interpreting and applying this section of the Code, the Pennsylvania Courts have steadfastly maintained those persons under 21 years of age are minors and incompetent to handle the effects of liquor. Congini, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308. We disagree with appellant’s contention appellees are adults, as defined by Rule 76, and, therefore, can be found criminally liable under section 6308.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“No evidence was presented the adult appellees [landlord] were present on the premises the evening appellant willingly imbibed at parties hosted by the tenants. They [landlord] did not plan the events nor were they involved in supplying or purchasing the alcohol served. The fact the parties appellant allegedly attended were held on property owned by the adult appellees is of no conse quence considering their obvious detachment from the events leading to appellant’s tragic accident. We will impose no duty for what appellant argues appel-lees should have known.”
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.