Baram v. Farugia’s Empirical Analysis
606 F.2d 42 · 1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2012
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 Lovejoy v. Murray · Hilbert v. Roth · 229 Pa. Super. 333 - BAKER v. RANGOS · Pierpoint v. Hoyt · 151 Pa. Super. 146 - Pearl Assurance Co. v. National Insurance Agency, 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... an act of willful interference with the dominion or control over a chattel, done without lawful justification, by which any person entitled to the chattel is deprived of its use and possession. The tort is predicated on interference with dominion or control over the chattel incident to some general or special ownership rather than on damage to the physical condition of the chattel.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.