Smith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 1989
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Morgan v. United States · Gardner v. Repasky · Foley Bros., Inc. v. Commonwealth · Bleilevens v. Commonwealth · Frame v. Sutherland
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are also cognizant of the problem faced by an appellant . . . who believes himself the victim of misconduct occurring after the closing of a reviewable record. . . . [T]he Commissions Counsel, may indeed have run afoul of constitutional provisions guaranteeing due process of law. . . . We are, however, without any means of determining the extent, if any, of the Counsels involvement in the decision-making processes of the Commission, except for conjecture, which cannot serve as the basis for an appellate court decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It taxes our imagination when we are asked to believe that the full Commission could have se riously considered a record of 304 pages, including 27 exhibits and the testimony of 11 witnesses, in the one day that elapsed between the typing of the transcript by the hearing stenographer and the issuance of the adjudication of the Commission. In addition to the review of this two volume record, the Commission would have had to approve a draft of its adjudication and prepare it for filing during this same day.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“After hearing, the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that the same is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or is not in accordance with law, or that the provisions of sections thirty-one to thirty-five inclusive of this act [71 P.S. §§1710. 31-.35] have been violated in the proceeding before the agency, or that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.”
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.