Commonwealth v. Durbin’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 1985
most recently cited
2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not accept the argument that the Commonwealth has in some fashion slept on its right of enforcing the laws which it has created. This is not a case of a private party litigant seeking to enforce a right within a specified time as dictated by the legislature. We are here confronted with the Commonwealth’s enforcing a public safety law as codified by Departmental regulation. Surely, there is no limitation on when such an exercise of the police power may occur. Moreover, Section 1 of the Fire and Panic Act, 35 P.S. §1221, states: “Whenever any building designated in this act shall, in the opinion of the Department of Labor and Industry, become dangerous to further occupancy because of structural or other defects. ...” (Emphasis added.) To say that failure to object to an unlawful and perhaps dangerous condition in the past precludes present enforcement is a position which we cannot accept.”
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.