Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 PACOMMW 382 - Levine v. Redevelopment Authority

Levine v. Redevelopment Authority’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2019

10 state decisions

4019751980199020002010decided

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 v. Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority · Clearfield Area Housing Corp. v. Hughes

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

  1. ““[T]o reach any other conclusion [than that the authority is a local agency which may be sued in the local court of common pleas rather than in the Commonwealth Court] would lead to the absurd and unreasonable result that a citizen would be required to pursue his [remedy] in Harrisburg even though the records were located in the community and the agency involved had been created by an individual city or county and the issues involved were matters strictly within the concern of a particular locality rather than a concern of the Commonwealth generally. The General Assembly, of course, could not have intended such a result.” 4”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““An Authority shall constitute a public body, corporate and politic, exercising public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency thereof . . ..””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]o reach any other conclusion would lead to the absurd and unreasonable result that a citizen would be required to pursue his right to gain access to information in Harrisburg even though the records were located in the community and the agency involved had been created by an individual city or county and the issues involved were matters strictly within the concern of a particular locality rather than a concern of the Commonwealth generally. The General Assembly, of course, could not have intended such a result.”
    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.