Bechler v. Parsekian’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably In Re the Suspension or Revocation of the Certificate of Heller (1977), Trap Rock Industries, Inc. v. Kohl (1971)
39 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 Ward v. Scott · Kennedy v. City of Newark · Two Guys From Harrison, Inc. v. Furman · Lane v. Holderman · Cammarata v. Essex County Park Commission
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the Wignall case, [ Wignall v. Fletcher, 303 N.Y. 435 , 103 N.E. 2 d 728, 730-731 ( Ct. App. 1952)], Judge Froessel pointed to the modern trend, which we consider to be a wholesome one; it recognizes that in today's society a license to operate an automobile may be of vital significance and value to the licensee and `may not be taken away except by due process' [ 303 N.Y. 435 , 103 N.E. 2 d 731] which requires that the licensee be fairly informed as to the charge against him and be afforded fair opportunity to be heard thereon. In Gellhorn and Byse, Administrative Law Cases and Comments 759-779 (4 th ed. 1960), the distinguished editors forcefully suggest (1) that not only the motor vehicle licensee but every licensee should have, prior to the complete withdrawal of the authority conferred upon him, `an opportunity to show cause why his license should not be revoked' and (2) that where, in the administrative agency's judgment, the protection of the public requires the immediate cessation of activities under the license, the agency should have and exercise the power to order a `summary suspension of the license pending an opportunity to the licensee to be heard on the question whether his authority should be permanently revoked. '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the light of all of the foregoing, we have concluded that here the Division failed to afford to the plaintiff legally sufficient notice and opportunity for hearing in the revocation proceeding which resulted in its revocation order, effective July 30, 1960. That order was not preceded by any hearing or by any notice fixing the time and place for a hearing at which the plaintiff could show cause why his license should not be revoked. Accordingly, it must be and is hereby set aside, but this action does not in any wise preclude or restrict the Division from properly initiating and prosecuting revocation proceedings based on any failure of the plaintiff to appear for the reexamination scheduled pursuant to the regulation of October 13, 1961.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the notice should direct his attention to the particular classification in which he falls.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.