Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 Pa. Commw. 455 - Downs v. Commonwealth

150 Pa. Commw. 455 - Downs v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
May 2000
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Harmelin v. Michigan · Rummel v. Estelle · Commonwealth v. Koczwara · Commonwealth v. Stoyko · 315 Pa. Super. 256 - Commonwealth v. Holmes

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. “mere employees,” unreasonable and absurd results would occur. All employees in this Commonwealth would risk criminal sanction when handling solid waste if their employers failed to obtain necessary permits. Moreover, because the SWMA imposes absolute criminal liability, see Section 606(i) of the SWMA, 35 P.S. § 6018.606(i) and Baumgardner Oil Co., it.would be no defense to employees that their employers explicitly told them that the necessary permits had been obtained. 9 . We note the conspicuous absence of criminal prosecutions of”
    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.