Boyer v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

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

1. “[f]or behavior to constitute wilful misconduct, it must evidence (1) the wanton and wilful disregard of the employer’s interest, (2) the deliberate violation of rules, (3) the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee, or (4) neg ligence which, manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional and substantial disregard for the employer’s interests or the employee’s duties and obligations.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Placid v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · Patterson v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

2. “The burden or proving willful misconduct is on the employer. . . . Where, as here, the party bearing the burden of proof prevails before the Board, we must determine on appeal whether an error of law has been committed and whether any necessary finding of fact is unsupported by substantial evidence. . . . Because [the employer] prevailed before the Board, it is entitled to the benefit of any inferences which can be reasonably and logically drawn from the evidence on the record. ... Of course, questions of credibility, resolution of conflicts in the evidence presented, and a determination of the weight to be given the evidence are matters for the Board to determine. (Citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolfe v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

3. “The burden of proof rests with Claimant to show that his conduct was constitutionally protected and that the conduct was the substantial or motivating factor in employer's decision to discharge him. If Claimant meets his burden, the burden of proof will then shift to Employer to show that it would have discharged him in the absence of the protected conduct. Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 , 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edmundson v. Borough of Kennett Square