Ashbourne School v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2013
4 federal appellate · 8 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 Uniontown Area School District v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission · State Dental Council & Examining Board v. Pollock · Pennsylvania Ass'n of Life Underwriters v. Commonwealth · TATE v. ANTOSH · 162 Pa. Super. 49 - Jenkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) When any child between school entry age and twenty-one (21) years of age and resident in this Commonwealth, who is blind or deaf, or has cerebral palsy and/or neurological impairment and/or muscular dystrophy and/ or is mentally retarded and/or has a serious emotional disturbance and/or has autism/pervasive developmental disorder and is enrolled, with the approval of the Department of Education, as a pupil in an approved private school approved by the Department of Education ... the school district in which such child is resident or, for students placed by a charter school, the charter school in which the student was enrolled, shall pay the greater of either twenty per centum (20%) of the actual audited cost of tuition and maintenance of such child in such school, as determined by the Department of Education, or its "tuition charge per elementary pupil” or its "tuition charge per high school pupil,” as calculated pursuant to section 2561, and the Commonwealth shall pay, out of funds appropriated to the department for special education, the balance due for the costs of such child’s tuition and maintenance, as determined by the department.... For the 2004-2005 school year and each school year thereafter, the school district or charter school payment shall be the greater of forty percent (40%) of the approved tuition rate ... or the school district or charter school’s "tuition charges per elementary pupil” or "tuition charges per secondary pupil” as calculated under section ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Secretary, obviously concerned about the equitable distribution of the remaining available funds, discussed three possible ways to solve the dilemma. The first possible course of action would have been to pay all allowable claims on a “first come, first served” basis. This was rejected outright as being grossly unfair and a possible violation of equal protection. The next possibility would have been for the Department to request a deficiency appropriation from the legislature. This was also discounted, since the Secretary felt compelled to honor the commitment of her predecessor who had promised the General Assembly that he would not secure a deficiency appropriation. The final possible course of action, and the one which was ultimately determined to be the most equitable, was to apportion the available monies on a pro rata basis so that each school received the same proportion of its approved tuition and room and board charges as every other school.”
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.