In re Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “First, the gravamen of Mr. Montgomery’s petition was that he was entitled to compensation for services — a claim properly pursued in an action at law against the county. As such it would be governed by Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1007 requiring actions at law to be brought by praecipe for a writ of summons or a complaint or an agreement for an amicable action. A petition for an order is not a praecipe, complaint or agreement and the petition in this case should have been dismissed. Hartmann v. Peterson, 438 Pa. 291 , 265 A.2d 127 (1970); see Petition of Pennsylvania Crime Commission, 446 Pa. 152 , 285 A.2d 494 (1971). We do not think that the invocation of this rule in this case is an act of exalting form over substance (see Tax Claim Bureau, German Township, 496 Pa. 46 , 436 A.2d 144 (1981) because the petition in this case had none of the ingredients of a complaint and no response in the form of an answer or other adversarial pleading was invited or made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Petition for the Approval of Special Counsel Appeal of Luzerne County Retirement Board