Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 504 Pa. 141 - Klein v. Raysinger

Klein v. Raysinger’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
11
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Kelly v. Gwinnell (1984), Congini by Congini v. PORTERSVILLE ETC. (1983)

4 federal appellate · 90 state decisions — followed in 11 states

49019831990200020102020decided

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 Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · Sinn v. Burd · Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education · 16 Cal. 3d 313 - Bernhard v. Harrah's Club

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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he great weight of authority supports the view that in the case of an ordinary able bodied man it is the consumption of alcohol, rather than the furnishing of the alcohol, which is the proximate cause of any subsequent occurrence.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “On or about May 8, 1978, Michael Klein and his family were driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike when they were struck in the rear by a vehicle which was driven by Mark Raysinger. Prior to the collision Raysinger had been a patron of the Neptune Inn, where he had consumed an undisclosed amount of alcohol. Prior thereto, Mr. Raysinger had been served beer and other alcoholic beverages at the home of the Gilligans. It is alleged that Raysinger was visibly intoxicated at the time he was served by the Gilligans, and that it was known at the time that Raysinger would be driving. As a consequence, appellants' claim that the Gilligans are liable in negligence for the injuries they sustained in the accident.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(a) Offense defined.—Except as provided in subsection (b), a person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if he intentionally and knowingly sells or intentionally and knowingly furnishes, or purchases with the intent to sell or furnish, any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to a person who is less than 21 years of age.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.