Mistecka v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2005 · most notably Snyder v. Harmon (1989), Robson v. Penn Hills School District (1981)
45 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 Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways · 241 Pa. Super. 423 - Otto v. American Mutual Insurance · Brungard v. HARTMAN
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n cases under 42 Pa. C. S. §5110(a)(4), we will leave to the determination of a jury the question of whether or not the condition is a dangerous one. That aspect is specifically expressed in the initial clause of the proviso stating, “. . . the claimant to recover must establish that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of damage which was incurred....””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and sidewalks. Damages caused by a dangerous condition of Commonwealth real estate and sidewalks, including Commonwealth-owned real property, leaseholds in the possession of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth real property leased to private persons, and highways under the jurisdiction of Commonwealth agencies except as limited in paragraph (5).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nichols v. Hatch · Wyke v. Ward““Where there are averments of a continuing history of unknown assailants throwing rocks from a local highway bridge overpass down upon a state highway beneath, so as to injure travelers on the state highway, does that situation constitute a ‘dangerous condition’ of a highway under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth?””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nichols v. Hatch
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.