Heller v. Frankston’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Thompson v. Nason Hospital (1991), 342 Pa. Super. 375 - Hoffman v. Memorial Osteopathic Hospital (1985)
2 federal appellate · 46 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 Parker v. Children's Hospital of Phila. · Saulsbury v. Bethlehem Steel Co. · Cali v. Philadelphia · Mattos v. Thompson · Mayhugh v. Coon
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 1925. Constitutional construction of statutes The provisions of eveiy statute shall be severable. If any provision of any statute or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the statute, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby, unless the court finds that the valid provisions of the statute are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so depend upon, the void provision or application, that it cannot be presumed that the General Assembly would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one; or unless the court finds that the remaining valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and incapable of being executed in accordance with legislative intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) No action to which a minor is a party shall be compromised, settled or discontinued except after approval by the court pursuant to a petition presented by the guardian of the minor. (b) When a compromise or settlement has been so approved by the court, or when a judgment has been entered upon a verdict or by agreement, the court upon petition by the guardian or any party to the action, shall make an order approving or disapproving any agreement entered into by the guardian for payment out of the fund created by the compromise; or the court may make such order as it deems proper fixing counsel fees and other proper expenses ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]e emphasize that in striking down Section 309 we indicated, in the clearest possible language, that the constitutional objection resulted from the arbitration scheme. We did not expressly or implicitly limit our action to the “exclusive” aspect of the panels’ jurisdiction. Our holding in Mattos rendered invalid the only legislative grant of jurisdiction to the panels. The only body competent to confer a new jurisdictional predicate for the panels would have been the legislature. This the legislature has not done.”
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.