Commonwealth v. Passell’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably Kalmbach, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania, Inc. (1976), Baehr Bros. v. Commonwealth (1979)
3 federal appellate · 33 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 Murray v. Philadelphia · Sablosky v. Messner · Commonwealth v. Willson Products, Inc. · Belefski Estate · Smith v. Messner
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘On dissolution, the legal title to land passes to the stockholders, and title to the corporate property vests in the stockholders as tenants in common. . . .’ Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm. Ed.) (1962 Rev. Vol.) §8134, p. 300 and authorities therein cited. See also: Mt. Carmel R. Co. v. M. A. Hanna Co., 371 Pa. 232 , 89 A.2d 508 . When the appellants surrendered for cancellation their stock certificates then, in the absence of any obligations owed by Craig, Craig’s interest in this realty became vested in and passed to its stockholders by operation of law. The provisions of the liquidation statute that the ‘property remaining’ in a debt-free corporation ‘shall be paid or distributed’ merely provide the mechanical operation required of the directors for record purposes: by operation of law the transfer of the remaining corporate assets to the stockholders has already taken place and the statutory requirement simply supplements that which has already occurred. We agree with appellants’ statement: ‘The only purpose of the deed in a corporate liquidation and dissolution is simply to place on record information regarding the transfer much in the same way that articles of merger provide such information in the case of a corporate merger.’ (Footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The only purpose of the deed in a corporate liquidation and dissolution is simply to place on record information regarding the transfer much in the same way that articles of merger provide such information in the case of a corporate merger. [at 481]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any deed, instrument or writing whereby lands . . . shall be . . . conveyed . . . but does not include . . . mortgages. . . . (Emphasis added.)”
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.