Hoffman v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably Pittsburgh Outdoor Advertising Corp. (1970), Williams v. Department of Highways (1966)
29 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 Weston v. Commonwealth · St. Clair Cemetery Ass'n v. Commonwealth · Westmorel'd C. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Com. · Lewis v. Pittsburgh Railways Co. · Brown & Vaughn Development Co. v. Commonwealth
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of the pertinent sections of the code is to bring out before the jury the elements which a witness is using in valuing the condemned property, and thus aid the jury in properly ascertaining the true facts, and in assessing the witness’s testimony as to. valuation. To hold otherwise would mean that the owner of the property could state only the valuation he put on his property without being permitted to demonstrate to the jury the elements he considered in reaching his valuation. A qualified expert, on the other hand, could show the elements he considered in reaching his valuation. Such a rule, would be markedly unfair, because the jury could easily imply that the owner’s valuation. was a mere guess.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It may be argued that a distinction should be made between the owner and an expert because the latter is more, likely to possess the knowledge necessary for testimony in such matters as ‘reproduction costs’ Our courts, however, have left any such distinction in qualifications up to the jury.”
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.