Taylor v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 137 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Archbishop O'Hara's Appeal (1957), Kline v. Harrisburg (1949)
2 federal appellate · 137 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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · White's Appeal · Haller Baking Company's Appeal · Gilfillan's Permit · Taylor v. Haverford Township
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all cases which we have been able to examine, except one, questions bearing on the constitutionality or validity of a Zoning Act or ordinance have come to us or the Superior Court through the remedy provided in the act of assembly governing zoning [citing cases]. In Herskovitz et ux. v. Irwin et al., 199 Pa. 155 , [the one exception noted,] the proceeding was properly for mandamus, as the court pointed out. In that case, after the board had allowed the permit, the right was complete, and no method existed to compel its issuance except mandamus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jacobs v. Fetzer“In assessment of properties, the legislature has provided a special remedy for property owners aggrieved by the acts of the board of revision. In all such cases we have held that the specific remedy must be pursued, though, through unfairness, oppression, or unreasonableness, confiscation may be the question. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jacobs v. Fetzer““That act provides that in all cases where a remedy or method of procedure is provided or a duty enjoined by any act of assembly, the directions of such act shall be strictly pursued, and we have held that such remedy or procedure is exclusive.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rich & Co. Appeal
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.