York County v. Fry’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1946
9 state decisions
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 Harry Mulcrevy v. City and County of San Francisco · Philadelphia v. Martin · Luzerne County v. Morgan · Bachman's Appeal · Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Wert
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the cases above cited where the county official was allowed to retain the fees, etc., he had been expressly designated as agent for the Commonwealth, and the theory upon which those cases rest, is that the fees, etc., which the officer is permitted to retain are received by him for services as agent for the Commonwealth and not in his official capacity as a county officer. Nevertheless, the general rule is that salaried officers can appropriate to their own use no fees for the performance of any duty cast upon them by law: Schuylkill Co. v. Pepper, 182 Pa. 13 ; Phila. v. McMichael, 208 Pa. 297 ; Schuylkill Co. v. Reese, 249 Pa. 281; Mulcrevy v. San Francisco, 231 U. S. 669 .” (Italics supplied.)”
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.