Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 PA 193 - Lenson v. Sandler

Lenson v. Sandler’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 1986
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Kros v. Bacall Textile Corp. · Roche v. Rankin · Lansdowne Bank & Trust Co. v. Robinson · Noonan, Inc. v. Hoff · Schwartz v. Sher

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.

  1. “The issue before us would not have arisen had the Lessor pursued its remedy by entering judgment in an amicable action by an attorney under the authority conferred in the warrant contained in the lease. Had such been done, it would only have been necessary that the affidavit on which the confession of judgment was based set forth Lessee’s default justifying the entry of the judgment and the amount alleged to be due as a result thereof. The judgment then entered would have been valid and, if Lessees had wished to contest the facts contained in the affidavit and entry of judgment, they could have petitioned the court to open the judgment so that evidence might be presented to mitigate the alleged assessment of damages: Gratz Brothers v. Margolis, 186 Pa.Super. 268 , 142 A.2d 375 (1958); Kros v. Bacall Textile Corp., 386 Pa. 360 , 126 A.2d 421 (1956); Noonan, Inc. v. Hoff, supra. The Lessor did not so proceed. The clear distinction between the entry of judgment by a prothonotary and the entry of judgment as a result of an amicable action filed by an attorney under the warrant in the instrument must be maintained.”
    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.