Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 PA 526 - Moore Nomination Petition

Moore Nomination Petition’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably 104 Pa. Commw. 21 - West Penn Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (1987), Holt v. 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission (2012)

38 state decisions

12019721980199020002010decided

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 American Labor Party Case · Harris v. Mercur · Turtzo v. Boyer · Meitner v. Scarborough · Singer v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

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

  1. “All nomination petitions and papers received and filed within the periods limited by this act shall be deemed to be valid, unless, within seven days after the last day for filing said nomination petition or paper, a petition is presented to the court specifically setting forth the objections thereto, and praying that the said petition or paper be set aside. A copy of said petition shall, within said period, be served on the officer or board with whom said nomination petition or paper was filed. Upon the presentation of such a petition, the court shall make an order fixing a time for hearing which shall not be later than ten days after the last day for filing said nomination petition or paper, and specifying the time and manner of notice that shall be given to the candidate or candidates named in the nomination petition or paper sought to be set aside....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The court below was of the opinion that it was without jurisdiction____ Jurisdiction relates solely to the competency of the court to hear and determine controversies of the class to which the case immediately presented belongs. The court below had jurisdiction to hear the petition in question. It could not, however, grant the requested relief for the reason that appellant failed to prove compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Election Code.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “All nomination petitions and papers received and filed within the periods limited by this act shall be deemed to be valid, unless, within seven days after the last day for filing said nomination petition or paper, a petition is presented to the court specifically setting forth the objections thereto, and praying that the said petition or paper be 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.