Robachinski v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 1997
22 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 Difronzo v. United States · Stevenson v. Silverman · McCarthy v. Township of McCandless · McIntyre v. E. J. Lavino & Co. · Matje v. City of Philadelphia
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . when in both the old and the new proceedings the subject matter and the ultimate issues are the same, there is an identity of causes of action for purposes of res judicata. The state of the claimants health at a given time is the subject matter of a claim petition alleging disability because of anthracosilicosis with the ultimate issue being whether or not the claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act at the time alleged in the petition. Here, the claimants initial petition alleged total disability because of anthracosilicosis on October 13, 1973. His second petition, however, alleged total disability because of anthracosilicosis on August 13, 1975, a date some 22 months later. The subject matter and the ultimate issues of the claim petitions differ, therefore, in the time periods in which disability is alleged, and we believe that this difference renders the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fact that claimant did not have additional employment exposure in the period between his first and second claim petitions does not make the referee’s subsequent finding of disability unreasonable, for the progressive nature of occupational diseases has long been recognized by the Courts of the Commonwealth. ... In the absence of a referee’s prior finding that claimant did not have the disease at all, the lack of additional employment exposure does not make the referee’s subsequent findings of disability unreasonable. (Emphasis added.)”
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.