green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Percy v. Allen
(2×)
But see Fesel v. Masonic Home of Delaware, Inc., 447 F.Supp. 1346, 1350 (D.Del.1978) (characterizing the employer’s burden as “very heavy”), aff’d 591 F.2d 1334 (3rd Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Senese v. Peoples
In Jeng v. Witters, 452 F.Supp. 1349 (M.D.Pa.1978), aff'd sub nom. 591 F.2d 1334 (3rd Cir.1979), Judge Herman explained, "[l]ast clear chance, at least as it was applied in Pennsylvania before the adoption of comparative negligence, only had a place in determining as between two independent tortfeasors whose negligence was the proximate cause of a plaintiffs injury.” Id. at 1368, citing Coleman v. Dahl, 371 Pa. 639 , 92 A.2d 678 (1952).
cited
Cited "see"
Klupt v. Krongard
See id. at 383 & n. 78 (citing Freeman v. Kulicke & Soffa Indus., 449 F.Supp. 974, 981 (E.D.Pa.1978), aff'd, 591 F.2d 1334 (3d Cir. 1979); Ross v. Great Atl. & Pac.
discussed
Cited "see"
Zions First National Bank v. United Health Clubs, Inc.
See Freeman v. Kulicke & Sofia Industries, Inc., 449 F.Supp. 974 (E.D. *140 Pa.1978), affirmed, 591 F.2d 1334 (3d Cir. 1979); Kroungold v. Triester, 521 F.2d 763 (3d Cir. 1975). 1 DR 5-102 addresses both the situation where a lawyer may be called on behalf of his client’s interest and where he may be called against his client’s interest: (A) If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that he or a lawyer in his firm ought to be called as a witness on behalf of his client, he shall withdraw from the conduct of the trial and his fi…
cited
Cited "see"
Margaret Fisher Knight v. Otis Elevator Company and Hartford Insurance Group and Atwell, Vogel& Sterling, Inc. v. Western Electric Company, Third-Party
See Bundie v. Skil Corporation, 591 F.2d 1334 (3d Cir. 1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Knight v. Otis Elevator Co.
See Bundie v. Skil Corporation, 591 F.2d 1334 (3d Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Livingwell (North) Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
(2×)
See, e.g., Fesel v. Masonic Home, 447 F.Supp. 1346 (D.Del.1978) aff'd mem., 591 F.2d 1334 (3rd Cir.1979) (customer preference related to intimate privacy rights including dressing, bathing, toileting, geriatric pad changes and catheter care may justify a BFOQ); Hodgson v. Robert Hall Clothes, Inc., 326 F.Supp. 1264, 1269 (D.Del.1971), aff'd in relevant part, 473 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866 , 94 S.Ct. 50 , 38 L.Ed.2d 85 (1973) (male gender is BFOQ for sales position in men’s clothing store); EEOC v. Mercy Hospital, 28 EPD ¶ 32, 603 (W.D.Okla.1982) (desire for sexual privacy…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 909, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 12,949 Connie L. Habecker, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John R. Habecker, Deceased John Michael Habecker, Minor, by Connie L. Habecker, His Parent, Natural Guardian and Next Friend v. Clark Equipment Co. Forklifts, Inc.
First, in establishing that the design in question was defective, the plaintiff must offer proof of an alternative, safer design, practicable under the circumstances.... 23 Second, the plaintiff must offer proof of what injuries, if any, would have resulted had the alternative, safer design been used.... 24 Third, as a corollary to the second aspect of proof, the plaintiff must offer some method of establishing the extent of enhanced injuries attributable to the defective design. 25 Huddell v. Levin, 537 F.2d 726, 737-38 (3d Cir.1976). 26 Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not had occ…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Habecker v. Clark Equipment Co.
Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not had occasion to adopt or reject the crashworthiness doctrine, this court has held that “[t]he crashworthiness doctrine as articulated in Huddell v. Levin is applicable to cases governed by Pennsylvania law.” Roe v. Deere and Co., 855 F.2d 151 , 153 n. 2 (3d Cir.1988); see also Jeng v. Witters, 452 F.Supp. 1349 (M.D.Pa. 1978), aff'd mem. 591 F.2d 1334 (3d Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
(2×)
See, e. g., Fesel v. Masonic Home of Delaware, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 1346 (Del. 1978), aff'd, 591 F. 2d 1334 (CA3 1979) (nurse's aide in retirement home); Jones v. Hinds General Hospital, 666 F. Supp. 933 (SD Miss. 1987) (nursing assistant); Local 567 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Michigan Council 25, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 635 F. Supp. 1010 (ED Mich. 1986) (mental health workers); Norwood v. Dale Maintenance System, Inc., 590 F. Supp. 1410 (ND Ill. 1984) (washroom attendant); Backus v. Baptist Medical Ce…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. Hinds General Hospital
See, e.g., Fesel v. Masonic Home of Delaware, Inc., 447 F.Supp. 1346 (D.C.Del.1978), aff 'd mem., 591 F.2d 1334 (3rd Cir.1979) (factual basis existed for believing that female patients in retirement home would object to intimate touching by male nurses, and defendant demonstrated that employees’ schedules could not be adjusted to avoid privacy violation); City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm’n, 7 Pa.Cmwlth. 500 , 300 A.2d 97 , 103 n. 7 (1973) (policy of defendant youth center requiring hiring of supervisory personnel of same sex as inmates due to contact with youths up…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sandra Moteles v. University of Pennsylvania and Local 506, United Plant Guard Workers of America
(2×)
See, e.g., Fesel v. Masonic Home, 447 F.Supp. 1346 (D.Del.1978) (hiring), aff 'd, 591 F.2d 1334 (3d Cir.1979).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey
v.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co
v.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co
78-1930.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jan 25, 1979.
591 F.2d 1334
Published
Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey
v.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
No. 78-1930
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
1/25/79
1
E.D.Pa.
AFFIRMED