Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 434 PA 126 - Gardner v. Repasky

Gardner v. Repasky’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
4
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Lyness v. Com., State Bd. of Medicine (1992), State Dental Council & Examining Board v. Pollock (1974)

115 state decisions

600196919701980199020002010decided

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 Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. · Schlesinger Appeal · Bullitt County v. Washer · VANDERGRIEFT BOROUGH v. Polito

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

  1. “[A]ny tribunal permitted by law to try cases and controversies must not only be unbiased but must avoid even the appearance of bias.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The proper procedure is to file the charges at the time Council suspends the employee and notify the employee of same within five days. There are at least three reasons for requiring this procedure: (a) that the employee may be informed of what misbehavior he is accused and rectify it if he so chooses, (b) that the employee can determine whether the charges are statutorily sufficient, and (3) (sic) that he can decide whether to take an appeal to the Civil Service Commission and, if he does, to file a timely answer.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Because of the long delays and the looseness of the procedure that denied appellant the protection afforded by the Act of Assembly and due process, the order of the lower court is reversed and the suspension set aside.”
    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.