Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 PACOMMW 375 - Cunningham v. Commonwealth

Cunningham v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
April 1997
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 1997

17 state decisions

110197519801990decided

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 Hunter v. Jones · Piwoz v. Iannacone · Commonwealth v. White · Fleming v. Commonwealth · Scasserra v. Civil Service Commission

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““the probationary status civil service employe does not enjoy the job security afforded persons on regular status, who may be removed only for just cause. However, administrative and judicial review is available to a probationary status employe who has received notice of removal when, as here, he alleges that his removal was based upon discrimination ‘because of political or religious opinions or affiliations because of labor union affiliations or because of race, national origin or other non-merit factors.’ Section 905.1, as amended, 71 P.S. §741.905 (a) (Supp. 1974-1975). If the probationary status employe fails to sustain his charge of discrimination, his dismissal stands without consideration of the validity of the determination of unsatisfactory work performance. (Citations omitted.) “The appellant here asserts that his removal was because of the non-merit and discriminatory factor of prejudice against him as a former drug user. The burden of proving the charge of discrimination was on the appellant.” Cunningham, supra, 17 Pa. Com monwealth Ct. at 377-378, 332 A.2d at 840-841 . (Citations omitted.)”
    3 later decisions 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.