Manning v. Andy’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. (1974), Kelly v. Gwinnell (1984)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 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 Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education · Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom · Whitner v. Lojeski · Majors v. Brodhead Hotel · Clevenstein v. Rizzuto
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It shall be unlawful ... for any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee or the board or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor ... or to permit any liquor ... to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated Manning v. Andy, 454 Pa. at 239 , 310 A.2d at 76 (Footnote in original).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[n]o legislative enactment...; it is ordinary tort law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Liquor Code is primarily concerned with the regulation of licensees of the Liquor Control Board and others connected in one way or another with the liquor industry. [Footnote omitted]. In my view it is appropriate to hold persons in that class strictly liable in tort law for a violation of the statute, as this Court has done in cases cited above. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, §286 (1965). That standard of liability, however, is obviously not appropriate for every violation of a criminal statute [footnote omitted], and in my view it is not appropriate where, as here, the defendant is a private individual in no way part of the liquor industry. To my knowledge, no court has created civil liabiliy with respect to such persons. See Annt., 8 A.L.R. 3d 1412 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. Smith
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.