REDEVELOP. AUTH., PHILA. v. Lieberman’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 1412 Spruce, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (1984), Nejberger (1991)
7 federal appellate · 44 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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Graham v. Richardson · United States v. General Motors Corp. · Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Specifically, section 1976(a) of this act provides: The repeal of any civil provisions of a statute shall not affect or impair any act done, or right existing or accrued, or affect any civil action pending to enforce any right under the authority of the statute repealed. Such action may be proceeded with and concluded under the statutes in existence when such action was instituted, notwithstanding the repeal of such statutes, or such action may be proceeded with and conclude trader the provisions of the new statute, if any, enacted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The issuance of a liquor license in Pennsylvania constitutes governmental ‘permission’ to use particular premises for a particular purpose. . . . Unless we bog down in technical and unrealistic concepts, it cannot be disputed that a liquor license adds significant use value to a particular premise. Once granted, the license may not be arbitrarily revoked. Indeed, a licensee who is ‘aggrieved by the refusal of the [Board] ... to renew or transfer any such license may appeal’ to the courts for judicial review. (47 P.S. §4-464).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fact that a liquor license is sometimes referred to as a “privilege” rather than a “right” is irrelevant to the issue before us. We rejected the nomenclature argument in Kosco v. Hachmeister, Inc., supra, 396 Pa. 288 , 152 A.2d 673 (1959). See also Feitz Estate, supra, 402 Pa. 437 , 167 A.2d 504 (1961); and Chalk Appeal, 441 Pa. 376 , 272 A.2d 457 (1971). Rigid labels, such as “right” or “privilege,” cannot determine a person’s constitutional and statutory right to “just compensation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.