Baker v. ACandS’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Carrozza v. Greenbaum (2007), Harsh v. Petroll (2005)
43 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 McKnight v. Commonwealth · Phillips v. A-Best Products Co. · Walton v. Avco Corp. · Charles v. Giant Eagle Markets · Joint Eastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation Johns-Manville Corporation Findley Ej Jt v. Falise
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a plaintiff and settling defendant sign a pro tanto release, then the plaintiffs ultimate recovery against the nonsettling joint tortfeasors is the total award of damages reduced by the amount of consideration paid for the release. In contrast, if the parties sign a pro rata release (which is also known as an “apportioned share set-off’ release), then the plaintiffs ultimate recovery against the nonsettling tortfeasors is the total award of damages reduced by the settling party’s allocated share of the liability.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A release by the injured person of one joint tort-feasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tort-feasors unless the release so provides, but reduces the claim against the other tort-feasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced if greater than the consideration paid.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In Pennsylvania, joint tortfeasors, including those in strict liability actions, are jointly and severally hable. Thus, the plaintiff may recover the entire damages award from only one of the joint tortfeasors. That tortfeasor’s recourse for paying more than its proportionate share of the verdict is to sue the nonpaying joint tortfeasors in contribution.”
2 later decisions 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.