Snyder v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
December 2009
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. · Lavelle v. Koch · Sweeney v. Tucker · Leahey v. Farrell · Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course, the AOPC is under no obligation to represent every court in every funding dispute that may arise. Nor is it under any obligation to pay someone else to do so. As the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration make clear, the AOPC has discretion to determine whether, in its judgment, a matter is “appropriate” for it to handle or to which it should devote its resources.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our analysis in [Lavelle v. Koch, 532 Pa. 631 , 617 A.2d 319 (1992),] recognized that the exercise of the inherent judicial power to compel funding is reserved for exceptional cases in which a legislative act poses “a genuine threat to the administration of justice, that is, [there must be] a nexus between the legislative act and the injury to the judiciary, not merely a theoretical encroachment by the legislature.” Beckert v. Warren, 497 Pa. 137, 147 , 439 A.2d 638, 643 (1981); Ellenbogen v. County of Allegheny, 479 Pa. 429, 438 , 388 A.2d 730, 735 (1978); Commonwealth ex rel. Bradley v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 479 Pa. 440, 447-48 , 388 A.2d 736, 739-40 (1978).... We emphasize that this Court cannot uncritically accept the evidence offered to establish the reasonable necessity of a court’s salary requests. To the contrary, we must scrutinize any evidence and question any assertions that are made by the plaintiff court. See Lavelle, 532 Pa. at 636-37 , 617 A.2d at 322 . This critical approach flows from our overriding concern with preserving the separation of powers that distinguishes our tripartite form of government.... This allocation of governmental power is designed to avoid the tyranny that arises when absolute power is entrusted to a single body. The Federalist No. 47 (J. Madison). We protect against the hazards of tyranny by invalidating acts by one branch which compromise the independent, co equal status of another. Thus, in certain circumstances, the legis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is no statute authorizing an award of attorney fees in a case like this. Nor is there any established exception permitting the practice. Moreover, we are not persuaded by President Judge Lavelle’s pleas that we create an exception now. Specifically, he argues that the judiciary’s inherent powers to compel funding are meaningless unless the legislative branch is obligated to cover the costs associated with bringing an action in mandamus. However, that argument ignores the fact that any member of this Commonwealth’s judiciary can turn to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts for “legal services and, when appropriate, representation by legal counsel.” Pa.R.J.A. 505(15).”
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.