MEYER BY MEYER v. Heilman’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2020
14 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 Burrell v. Philadelphia Electric Co. · General Electric Credit Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Carroll v. Pittsburgh · Fisher v. Diehl · Frank v. W. S. Losier Co., Inc.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We would, in fact, find that the trial court had exceeded its legal power had it required an exonerated defendant to stand trial a second time____ If the jury finds one defendant negligent and exonerates another, the factual issue has been resolved. Absent reversible error in the charge — and none is here alleged — the defendant who has been absolved of negligence should not be subjected to a new trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Heilmans [owners] were unquestionably “absolved of negligence” in the instant matter; the fact that International Harvester [manufacturer] was granted a non-suit rather than adjudged negligent does not affect our analysis. Thus, “[t]he jury’s verdict must be accepted on appeal absent trial error which casts serious doubt on the jury verdict or palpable insufficiency of evidence.” (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“does not alter the nature of the cause of action against the individual defendants.”
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.