118 Pa. Commw. 97 - Chambers Development Co. v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2012
5 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 Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Blue Ridge Gas Company, Intervenor. Petition for Review of Order of the Federal Power Commission, No. 14583. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Appeal From United States District Court for the District of Columbia · Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc. · Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · Pa. Pub. Util. Com'n v. Proc. Gas Consum. · Township of Chartiers v. William H. Martin, 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is a well-recognized distinction in the law of administrative agencies between the authority of a rule adopted by the agency pursuant to what is denominated by the textwriters as legislative rule-making power and the authority of a rule adopted pursuant to interpretative rule-making power. The former type of rale ‘is the product of an exercise of legislative power by an administrative agency, pursuant to a grant of legislative power by the Legislative body’, and ‘is valid and is as binding upon a court as a statute if it is (a) within the granted power, (b) issued pursuant to proper procedure, and (c) reasonable.’ K.C. Davis, 1 Administrative Law Treatise § 5.03, at 299 (1958). A court in reviewing such a regulation, ‘is not at liberty to substitute its own discretion for that of administrative officers who have kept within the bounds of their administrative powers. To show that these have been exceeded in the field of action ... involved, it is not enough that the prescribed system of accounts shall appear to be unwise or burdensome or inferior to another. Error or unwisdom is not equivalent to abuse. What has been ordered must appear to be “so entirely at odds with fundamental principles ... as to be the expression of a whim rather than an exercise of judgment____ An interpretive rule on the other hand depends for its validity not upon a tow-making grant of power, but rather upon the willingness of a reviewing court to say that it in fact tracks the meaning of the sta”
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.