Caba v. Weaknecht’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(i) An individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. (ii) An individual who has been convicted of an offense under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. (iii) An individual convicted of a crime enumerated in section 6105. (iv) An individual who, within the past ten years, has been adjudicated delinquent for a crime enumerated in section 6105 or for an offense under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. (v) An individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution. (vi) An individual who is addicted to or is an unlawful user of marijuana or a stimulant, depressant or narcotic drug. (vii) An individual who is a habitual drunkard. (viii) An individual who is charged with or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year except as provided for in section 6123 (relating to waiver of disability or pardons). (ix) A resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by that state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury under 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(19) (relating to definitions). (x) An alien who is illegally in the United State”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. John Doe 1 v. Franklin County

2. “There might be cases in which a State refused to re-employ a person under such circumstances that interests in liberty would be implicated. But this is not such a case. The State, in declining to rehire [Roth], did not make any charge against him that might seriously damage his standing and associations in his community. It did not base the nonrenewal of his contract on a charge, for example, that he has been guilty of dishonesty, or immorality. Had it done so, this would be a different case. For '[w]here a person's good name, reputation, honor or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential.' ... In such a case, due process would accord an opportunity to refute the charge before University officials. In the present case, however, there is no suggestion whatever that [Roth's] 'good name, reputation, honor or integrity' is at stake. Similarly, there is no suggestion that the State, in declining to re-employ [Roth], imposed upon him a stigma or other disability that foreclosed his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities. The State, for example, did not invoke any regulations to bar [Roth] from all other public employment in state universities. Had it done so, this, again, would be a different case. For "[t]o be deprived not only of present government employment but of future opportunity for it certainly is no small injury .... "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. C. DeLuca and DeLuca's Auto Repair and Towing, Inc. v. Hazleton PD and Chief of Police F v. DeAndrea, Jr.

3. “Neither Heller nor McDonald dealt directly with a challenge to a state’s concealed carry law. We see nothing in either decision that causes us to rethink our precedent, upholding the constitutionality of Section 6109 of the Act. To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decisions recognize that concealed carry laws, such as the scheme set forth in the Act, are presumptively valid even under a heightened standard of constitutional scrutiny.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 282 - Commonwealth v. McKown