Fischer v. KASSAB’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘[Ojfficers,’ for jurisdictional purposes, should encompass only those persons who perform state-wide policymaking functions and who are charged with the responsibility for independent initiation of administrative policy regarding some sovereign function of state government. We do not believe that it was the intent of the General Assembly to give this Court original jurisdiction over cases where local courts can much more conveniently and properly make the determination as to the liability of state employees who function on an essentially local or regional basis, any more than we believe that the General Assembly intended to give this Court original jurisdiction regarding employees performing subordinate ministerial functions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Witt v. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING · Rhines v. Herzel

2. “Turning to the officers sued here, we observe first that . [the] Secretary of Public Welfare , . . and the Commissioner of Mental Health are officers of the Commonwealth charged with administration of policy on a state-wide basis. We therefore have jurisdiction of the suits against these defendants. . Although the Superintendent and trustees of [the] State Hospital may well be held to be high public officials . we lack jurisdiction to decide this question because they do not have state-wide policymaking authority and are not therefore “officers” within the meaning of Section 401(a)(1) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rhines v. Herzel

3. “The question to be asked, therefore, is whether the defendant in question is charged with responsibility to independently initiate administrative policy on a state-wide basis with regard to a sovereign function of the Commonwealth. If the answer is no, this Court is without jurisdiction. If the answer is yes, we must then rule upon the issue of immunity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Witt v. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING