Soffer v. Beech’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Hack v. Hack (1981), Davis v. Westphal (2017)
38 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 · Pugh v. Holmes · Commonwealth v. McCusker · Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital · Falco v. PADOS
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The legal action of ejectment began not as a real property action, but as an action in trespass. Seitzinger v. Ridg-way, 9 Watts 496 (1840). Ejectment originally rested on a claim of actual or constructive ouster of the plaintiff. 13 Stand.Pa.Prac. Ch. 67, § 1 (1957). Entry by the lessee and subsequent ouster by the defendant were essential to the claim of trespass. The writ of ejectment, however, has changed dramatically in the centuries since its narrow origin. Today, the right to possession is the central element of the action- — not the claim of ouster. The writ of ejectment has long been the general method for obtaining possession of real property. Dice v. Reese, 342 Pa. 379, 384-86 , 21 A.2d 89, 92-93 (1941); Irwin v. Hoffman, 319 Pa. 8, 16-17 , 179 A. 41, 45 (1935). The writ has expanded from a tenant’s remedy and has long since been available to fee claimants and all others who assert the right to possession of estates in real property. See Gilberton Coal Co. v. Schuster, 403 Pa. 226, 228 , 169 A.2d 44, 45 (1961). [n. 6] Yet it has never been suggested that a fee claimant need allege entry and ouster in order to succeed in ejectment. Rather, our cases involving fee claimants speak only of the right to possession by one not presently in possession. [...].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.