George v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Prior to 1941 police employed by all boroughs had no civil service or job tenure rights and were subject to peremptory removal by borough council. The Police Civil Service Act (Act of June 5, 1941, P. L. 84, 53, PS §53251) changed this for boroughs employing three or more policemen. By that Act police employed by boroughs were granted job tenure rights which prohibited their dismissal, except for causes stated in the statute and in compliance with the procedures outlined therein. All the provisions of the Act of 1941 have been reenacted as a part of The Borough Code (Act of July 10, 1947, P. L. 1621, 53 PS §§46165-46190). The reenactment still applied only to boroughs having police forces of three or more members. In 1951 the legislature passed a Police Tenure Act (Act of June 15, 1951, P. L. 586, 53 PS §§811-815) which extended dismissal procedures of the Act of 1941 to police forces of less than three members.” That case held that the Act of 1951 was not repealed by the 1957 Amendment to the Borough Code. See also McCandless Township v. Wylie, 375 Pa. 378, 382 (1953).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 34 Pa. D. & C.2d 669 - Masemer v. Borough of McSherrystown

2. “The [Tenure Act] granted job employment security to police officers in boroughs having a police force of less than three members. A reading of the [relevant provisions of that act] clearly demonstrates that the legislature re-enacted almost verbatim the same statutory removal procedure found in the Civil Service Act of 1941 .... It is evident that the legislature intended to establish civil service removal procedures for all police officers regardless of the size of the police force .... * * * The legislature is presumed to intend to achieve a consistent body of law. Consistency in police removal methods is obtained by a uniform civil service procedure of removal which would not be attained were the [Tenure Act] repealed. Hence, since the [Tenure Act] contains civil service procedures within the exceptions of the Act of 1957 those procedures must be followed in order to properly dismiss a member of the police force.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deforte v. Borough of Worthington

3. “Legislation [prior] to the date of [the Tenure] Act "only partially endorsed and granted police tenure. In boroughs, incorporated towns and townships of the first class, job tenure was limited to police forces of three or more members and in townships of the second class no job tenure was provided, whatever might be the size of the police force. Evidently to remedy an obviously inequitable situation, the Legislature in 1951 passed the Police Tenure Act, ... which extended tenure to police forces of less than three members in boroughs, incorporated towns and townships of the first class and to all police forces of townships of the second class, regardless of the number employed. This was an expression of public policy to grant job tenure to all police employed by such municipalities regardless of their political classification."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deforte v. Borough of Worthington