139 Pa. Super. 569 - Kellerman v. Philadelphia’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 1993 · most notably Archbishop O'Hara's Appeal (1957), Hernandez v. Frohmiller (1949)
28 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 Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · Buttfield v. Stranahan · Union Bridge Company v. United States · Red 'C' Oil Manufacturing Company v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina a H C
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny legislative enactment which vests in a person or body of persons free of any standard independent of his or their own mind and judgment the power of supplying, or giving force to . . . its terms falls beyond the limits of judicial approval . . . and is unconstitutional.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The well recognized prohibition against the delegation of legislative power is a necessary outgrowth of the fundamental theory of the separation of governmental functions which permeates our State and Federal Constitutions alike. “The legislature may, however, leave to administrative officers, boards and commissions, the duty to determine whether the facts exist to which the law is itself restricted. In all such occasions, nevertheless, the legislative body must surround such authority with definite standards, policies and limitations to which such administrative officers, boards or commis sions, must strictly adhere and by which they are strictly governed. (Emphasis supplied.) “As to the delegation to the Department of Labor and Industry, the only condition precedent to the exercise of this extraordinary power to change the provisions of the statute and make its own law is expressed in the following words: ‘Where the strict application of the schedule of hours provided for by this section, imposes an unnecessary hardship and violates the intent and purpose of this act. * * If this condition is found to exist, the statute provides no limit to the exercise of the discretion of the Department with the approval of the Industrial Board to prescribe variations from the schedule of hours laid down in the act. This may be done by means of general rules and regulations which may be made, altered, amended and repealed at discretion. The Department is then free to fix the hours of lab”
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.