Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 PACOMMW 107 - Marcks v. Commonwealth

Marcks v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2015

14 state decisions

1001982199020002010decided

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 Snyder v. Commonwealth · Peoples Gas Heating Co. v. Commonwealth · 15 Pa. Commw. 419 - Joseph Horne Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · Scranton Garment Co. 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. “We agree with the Board that the medical evidence in this case is crucial. A review of that evidence reveals, however, that the Claimant’s physician testified that the Claimant was disabled by obstructive lung disease, chronic bronchitis and probably emphysema, and that the Claimant’s exposure to smoke during his employment was what caused the real problem. On the other hand, the Employer’s physician testified that Claimant could no longer work as a firefighter, but that the cause of his lung problems was his smoking for forty years. Neither the Board nor this Court can reason back from the Referee’s conclusions to determine which medical testimony was accepted and which was rejected by the Referee in reaching his conclusions. (Emphasis added.)”
    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.