Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 Pa. 486 - Commonwealth v. Bellis

Commonwealth v. Bellis’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
January 2011
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably Matter of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape (1981), 282 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Bidner (1980)

3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

14019791980199020002010decided

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 Beck v. United States · Commonwealth v. Peoples · 252 Pa. Super. 15 - Commonwealth v. Bellis · Commonwealth v. Francis · 176 Pa. Super. 80 - Commonwealth v. Ackerman

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

  1. “[t]he purpose of Section 4667 is to require an “agent, employe or servant” to possess an undivided loyalty to his principal. It is impossible for an agent to retain this loyalty as long as he solicits and/or receives money from third parties in return for acting on their behalf (i.e., “showing ... favor or disfavor”) in his principal’s affairs. By representing private parties before city officials while he was a councilman, appellant showed “favor or disfavor” in the affairs of his principal (the City of Philadelphia) in that he negotiated on behalf of and in the best interests of private parties in their dealings with the city. Hence, appellant violated Section 4667.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Appellant’s fourth contention is that he is not guilty of malfeasance on the grounds that his aforementioned misconduct could only be punished under Section 4667 (the bribery statute) and not under the common law. We agree with this contention.””
    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.