119 Pa. Commw. 24 - Kennedy v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Pay increases for government employees are never politically popular, but this bill seemed unremarkable — although one could question the propriety of having the increase in expense allowances take effect immediately, so that the legislators were in effect voting an increase for themselves. Yet the truly extraordinary feature of the bill was not the hint of self-dealing, but rather the way in which the legislators sought to clothe the self-dealing in protective garb. For the bill contained the following language: “The provisions of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void.” The implications of this clause are inescapable: there was some question as to the constitutionality of having legislators increase their own expense allowances; the legislature foresaw that a constitutional challenge was possible; and the inseverability clause ensured that if a court struck down the increase in legislators’ expense allowances, the increase in judicial salaries would be sacrificed as well.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stilp v. Commonwealth

2. “In this case, Petitioners’ complaint does not plead that the $1,000.00 expense increase is unreasonable and that a lesser amount would be reasonable. Instead, it attacks, on constitutional grounds, the increase in its entirety as one which is, in reality, a salary hike. We conclude that the above-quoted language [from Consumer Party\ is controlling upon the issue presented here and, thus, fatal to Petitioners’ theory of a constitutional violation of Article II, section 8.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stilp v. Commonwealth

3. “A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 162 Pa. Commw. 55 - Jubelirer v. Singel