Commonwealth v. Metzger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. ““The regulations challenged here, of course, are legislative in character, for they were issued pursuant to a grant of legislative power contained in Section 9 of the Sewage Facilities Act, 35 P.S. §750.9. Thus, they are subject to the same test with reference to their validity as in an act of the Legislature, Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 455 Pa. 52 , 313 A. 2d 156 (1973), and a heavy burden, therefore, rests upon the person asserting their unconstitutionality: Bilbar Construction Company v. Easttown Township Board of Adjustment, 393 Pa. 62 , 141 A. 2d 851 (1958). As our Supreme Court has said: “ ‘A court, in reviewing such a regulation, “is not at liberty to substitute its own discretion for that of administrative officers who have kept within the bounds of their administrative powers .... Error or unwisdom is not equivalent to abuse. What has been ordered must appear to be ‘so entirely at odds with fundamental principles ... as to be the expression of a whim rather than an exercise of judgment.’ ” American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232, 236-37 [ 57 S. Ct. 170, 172 ], 81 L. Ed. 142 (1936).’ Uniontown Area School District, supra, 455 Pa. at 77 , 313 A. 2d at 169 Id. 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 73 , 347 A. 2d 746 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Lancaster v. Department of Environmental Resources