449 Pa. Super. 405 - Dougherty v. Conduit & Foundation Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 district · 15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. · Wenrick v. Schloemann-Siemag Aktiengesellschaft · 413 Pa. Super. 308 - Pirozzi v. Penske Olds-Cadillac-GMC, Inc. · 324 Pa. Super. 384 - Timbrook v. Foremost Insurance · 332 Pa. Super. 284 - Colloi v. Philadelphia Electric Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An employer who permits the entry upon premises occupied by him or under his control of a laborer or an assistant hired by an employe or contractor, for the performance upon such premises of a part of the employer’s regular business entrusted to such employe or contractor, shall be liable to such laborer or assistant in the same manner and to the same extent as to his own employe.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) An employer [Atlantic] who is under contract with an owner [West Chester Area School District] or one in the position of an owner. (2) Premises occupied by or under the control of such employer [Atlantic]. (3) A subcontract made by such employer [Atlantic]. (4) Part of the employer’s [Atlantic’s] regular business intrusted to such subcontractor [Neuber]. (5) An employee [Al-Ameen] of such subcontractor [Neuber].”
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.