55 Pa. Commw. 1 - Hude v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) No licensee shall use or permit to be used inside or outside of the licensed premises a loudspeaker or similar device whereby the sound of music or other entertainment, or the advertisement thereof, can be heard on the outside of the licensed premises. ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Appeal of Two-O-Two Tavern, Inc. · In re Luvera

2. ““The validity of a liquor-related state regulation rests upon the state’s plenary power to control the sale and use of alcoholic beverages by virtue of the Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That the amendment ‘conferred on the states something more than the normal state authority over public health, welfare and morals’ is well-recognized. Fantastic Plastic, Inc. v. Pittsburgh, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 41 , 377 A. 2d 1051 (1977); California v. LaRue, 407 U.S. 109 , 93 S. Ct. 390 , [ 34 L. Ed. 2d 342 ] (1972). Indeed ‘there is perhaps no other area of permissible state action within which the exercise of the police power of a state is more plenary than in the regulation and control of the use and sale of alcoholic beverages.’ United Tavern Owners of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia School District, 441 Pa. 274, 277, 272 , A. 2d 868, 871 (1971). “Judge Van Antwerpen, in the trial court, found the regulation to be reasonably related to the public purpose of controlling evils historically associated with the sale and consumption of liquor, namely, ‘unruly behavior thought to be incited by loud, raucous music, and the resulting disturbance to the public and residents in the immediate vicinity of the liquor dispensing establishment. ’We agree, cognizant that Section l-104(a) of the Liquor Code provides for liberal interpretation of provisions aimed at accomplishing a number of goals, specifically mentioning ‘peace.’””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Appeal of Sedeshe