Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 PACOMMW 361 - Luketic v. Commonwealth

Luketic v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2013

8 state decisions

4019781980199020002010decided

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 Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · Frumento v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REV. · Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · Horace W. Longacre, Inc. v. Commonwealth · Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Tumolo

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

  1. “This Court has previously held that a finding that a claimant had a poor attitude is insufficient in itself to justify a conclusion of willful misconduct. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Dravage, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 636 , 353 A.2d 88 (1976); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Kullen, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 488 , 346 A.2d 926 (1975). As Judge Kramer stated for the Court in Kullen: An employe’s poor attitude must be coupled with some specific conduct adverse to his employer’s interest, or result in some identifiable detriment to the employer before a conclusion is justified. 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 490 , 346 A.2d at 927 . Similarly, we believe that a finding that a claimant was a disruptive influence alone would be insufficient to justify a conclusion of willful misconduct.”
    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.