Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 PACOMMW 177 - Aronson v. Commonwealth

Aronson v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
4
states following
April 2008
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2008

13 state decisions

90198119902000decided

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 48 Pa. Commw. 39 - Goralski v. Commonwealth · 54 Pa. Commw. 440 - Hansen v. Commonwealth · Langer v. Commonwealth · Cawley v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

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

  1. ““Subsection (g)(1) of N.J.S.A. 43:21-4 was designed to prevent an obvious potential for abuse where a teacher, or other educational professional, recurrently worked under an actual contract or a reasonable expectation of reemployment for the nine-month academic term but did not work during the summer recess. . . . “However, we cannot agree with _the respondent’s thesis which in essence holds that unemployment benefits should never be paid to full-time teachers whose contracts are not renewed and who are placed on a substitute list when terminated... . Claimant here lost full-time employment; she should not be denied unemployment benefits because the school board relegated her to the uncertain status of a day-to-day substitute against her will, despite her clearly expressed desire to find full-time employment in education or, if necessary, elsewhere in the economy. This case is in vivid contrast to the many cases standing for the proposition that a substitute teacher has a disqualifying ‘reasonable assurance’ of employment if substitute teaching will be available in the succeeding year. [Citations omitted.] “In this context, we construe the disqualifying language in N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(g)(1) and its federal equivalent, 26 U.S.C.A. § 3304 (a)(6)(A)(i), which states that ‘if there is a contract or reasonable assurance that such individual will perform services in any such [instructional] capacity for any educational institution in the second of such academic years or terms’ [emphas”
    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.