Vespaziani v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Ezy Parks v. Larson (1982), Clark v. Pennsylvania State Police (1981)
26 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 Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways · Kaufman Construction Co. v. Holcomb · Kaelin v. University of Pittsburgh · Brocker Manufacturing & Supply Co. v. United Bonding & Insurance · Koynok v. Commonwealth
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Board of Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts hereafter entered into- with the Commonwealth, where the amount in controversy amounts to $300.00 or more.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Petitioner] argues that the Board of Arbitration of Claims ho longer has exclusive ju risdiction (1) since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384 , 388 A.2d 709 (1978), that the Commonwealth is no longer immune from suit by virtue of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, and (2) since the Board of Arbitration of Claims was established to provide a forum for obtaining a remedy against the Commonwealth where none existed due to the sovereign’s immunity. We find no merit in this argument. In creating the Board of Arbitration of Claims, the Commonwealth had already set aside its immunity as to contractual claims. In Mayle, the Supreme Court did not decide that the legislature was not empowered to provide, pursuant to Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution, the Board of Arbitration of Claims with sole subject-matter jurisdiction over contractual claims against the C ommonwealth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“However, the test for determining whether a court has jurisdiction of the subject matter is whether the court is competent to determine controversies of the general class to which the case presented belongs, and the controlling question is whether the court has power to enter upon the inquiry and not whether it was unable to grant the relief sought. (Citation omitted.) (Emphasis in the original.)”
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.