Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 Pa. Commw. 401 - Radman v. Commonwealth

135 Pa. Commw. 401 - Radman v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
January 2001
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wm. Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh · 299 Pa. Super. 64 - Commonwealth v. Sanford · Wicker v. Civil Service Commission · 287 Pa. Super. 452 - Commonwealth v. Sensi · Cochran 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) General rule. The statement of the questions involved must state the question or questions in the briefest and most general terms, without names, dates, amounts or particulars of any kind. It should not ordinarily exceed 15 lines, must never exceed one page, and must always be on a separate page, without any other matter appearing thereon. This rule is to be considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby. Whenever possible each question must be followed immediately by an answer stating simply whether it was affirmed, negatived, qualified or not answered by the court or government unit below. If a qualified answer was given to the question, appellant shall indicate, most briefly, the nature of the qualification, or if the question was not answered and the record shows the reason for such failure, the reason shall be stated briefly in each instance without quoting the court or government unit below.”
    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.