Eritano v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2018
16 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 American Re-Insurance v. Washburn · 299 Pa. Super. 463 - Habecker v. Nationwide Insurance · Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Tarnopolski · In Re the Employees of Student Services, Inc. · Andrews v. Smith Et Ux.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“3 P.S. 459-502-A Registration. (a) — [Determination] Summary offense of harboring a dangerous dog. —Any person who has been attacked by -[-a-dog ] one or more dogs, or anyone on behalf of such person, a person whose domestic animal has been killed or injured without provocation, the State dog warden or the local police officer may [ malte ] file a complaint before a district justice, charging the owner or keeper of such a dog with harboring a dangerous dog. -[-The-determination of a dog as a dangerous-dog- shall be made -by the district justice upon evidence of a dog's history- or propensty to — attack - without provocation based upon — an—incident in which' the dog has done one or more of the following:- - ] The owner or keeper of the dog shall be guilty of the summary offense of harboring a dangerous dog if the district justice finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the following elements of the offense have been proven: (1)The dog has done one or more of the following: (1) Inflicted severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property. (ii) Killed or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property. (iii) Attacked a human being without provocation. (iv) Been used in the commission of a crime. (2) The dog has either or both of the following: (i) A history of attacking human beings andjor domestic animals without provocation. (ii) A propensity to attack human beings andjor domestic animals without provo”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Hake“1) a dog, while on public or private property, inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation; or 2) attacks a human being without provocation and where the dog has either (or both) a history of attacking human beings or animals without provocation or a propensity to attack human beings and/or domestic animals without provocation. 7”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Hake
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.