Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 PACOMMW 9 - Grzech v. Commonwealth

Grzech v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
April 1997
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Philco Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · Erie Forge & Steel Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · 169 Pa. Super. 554 - Hogan Unemployment Compensation Case · 49 Pa. Commw. 170 - Bowman v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · Houff Transfer, Inc. v. Commonwealth

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

  1. “An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week- id) In which his unemployment is due to a stoppage of work, which exists because of a labor dispute (other than a lock-out) at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Have the employees offered to continue working for a reasonable time under the preexisting terms and conditions of employment so as to avert a work stoppage pending the final settlement of the contract negotiations; and has the employer agreed to permit work to continue for a reasonable time under the preexisting terms and conditions of employment pending further negotiations? If the employer refuses to so extend the expiring contract and maintain the status quo, then the resulting work stoppage constitutes a “lockout” and the disqualification for unemployment compensation benefits in the case of a “stoppage of work because of a labor dispute” does not apply.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “There was a factual dispute as to what occurred. Because the Board agreed with the employer’s version doesn’t mean it disregarded the Petitioner’s evidence; rather, the Board gave less credence to it. That was the Board’s prerogative. (Emphasis in the original.)”
    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.