150 Pa. Super. 469 - Bell v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2013
4 federal appellate · 9 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 Commonwealth ex rel. Wolfe v. Butler · Hamberger v. Marcus · McCloskey v. Northdale Woolen Mills · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Costello · Firmstone v. Mack
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The obvious purpose of the act is to .protect earnings produced by physical or intellectual effort. On first impression the language used, “wages” and “salary”, would seem to involve the idea of periodical payments. Wages usually mean daily compensation, salary? payment at longer intervals, monthly or annually, etc. But such a narrow view should yield to the main purpose of the act, that is to protect compensation for labor. And intellectual labor is' quite as worthy of protection as manual labor ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““On the second branch of this case we are also in accord with the holding of the court below that the effect of the Bankruptcy Act and the order of the District Court thereunder was to make the Philadelphia Transportation Company Roberts’ employer within the intendment of our Act of 1845. “Obviously, the legislative purpose was to exempt compensation for personal services only so long as it had not come into the possession, or under the control of the employee.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The obvious purpose of the [relevant Pennsylvania statute] is to protect earnings produced by physical or intellectual effort.... The idea involved in wages and salaries [i.e., earnings] is compensation for personal services as distinguished from profits realized in commercial dealings, ... or returns from the labor of others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mickler v. Mickler
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.