Manross v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 2013
3 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 Jones v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMP. BD., ETC. · Barillaro v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · 119 Pa. Commw. 133 - Robinson v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV. · 49 Pa. Commw. 148 - Chacko v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · Adams v. Commonwealth
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.
“[In Robinson , w]e concluded, under the circumstances presented therein, that the claimant’s eligibility for benefits should have been analyzed under Section 3 since the claimant was discharged from his employment solely on the basis of the off-duty accident which had no connection to his work. Here, by contrast [the claimant’s temporary separation from his employment was not based upon his off-duty conduct per se, namely, operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. Rather, [the ejmployer temporarily suspended [the claimant from employment solely because [the claimant no longer held a valid driver’s license and, as a result, could no longer perform the work for which he had been hired. Unlike Robinson , [the claimant's failure to maintain a valid driver’s license, a prerequisite for his continued employment, was clearly connected to his work.”
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.