Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 PACOMMW 326 - Commonwealth v. Flowers

Commonwealth v. Flowers’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2003
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2003

10 state decisions

501979198019902000decided

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 250 Pa. Super. 378 - INTERN. TEL. & TEL. v. Phila. Elec. Co. · Thompson v. Cortese · Scharf v. Richard De Cou 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The issue before us in the present case is whether or not a final order of this court refusing to reactivate a case terminated under Rule 1901 of the Rules of Judicial Administration, as implemented by our Rule 650, terminates both the case and its underlying cause of action. We determine that it does. “In this respect, we find that Rule 1901 compels a result different from that which obtains after a court order refusing to take off a voluntary nonsuit, or remove a judgment of non pros, becomes final. In these latter situations, a final and unappealed court order does not destroy the underlying cause of action, and the plaintiff, if within the statute of limitations, can commence and prosecute a new proceeding upon the same cause of action.” (citations omitted) (emphasis in original) Id. at 328-329 , 407 A.2d at 897-98 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “However, if a plaintiff’s stale claim is dismissed, he may still petition the court to take off the non pros or bring a second action regardless of whether or not a formal entry of judgment has been made. (Emphasis as supplied by appellant’s brief)”
    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.