Meier v. Maleski’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 455 Pa. Super. 186 - Commonwealth v. Highhawk (1996), Governor's Office of Administration v. Purcell (2011)
25 state decisions
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 American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Scheiner · Masland v. Bachman · Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers v. Commonwealth, Bureau of Employment Security Department of Labor & Industry · 167 Pa. Commw. 458 - Meier v. Maleski · 61 Pa. Commw. 415 - Deremer 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. (b) When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. (c) When the words of the statute are not explicit, the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering, among other matters: (1) The occasion and necessity for the statute. (2) The circumstances under which it was enacted. (5) The former law, if any, including other statutes upon the same or similar subjects. (8) Legislative and administrative interpretations of such statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Buehl v. Horn“The fund shall be funded by the levying of an annual surcharge on or after January 1 of every year on all health care providers entitled to participate in the fund. The surcharge shall be determined by the director.... The surcharge shall be based on the cost to each health care provider for maintenance of the professional liability insurance and shall be the appropriate percentage thereof, necessary to produce an amount sufficient to reimburse the fund for the payment of all claims paid and expenses incurred during the preceding calendar year and to provide an amount necessary to maintain an additional $15,000,000.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The 1980 amendments clearly eliminated the previously existing $15,000,000 cap and accompanying surcharge reduction requirement. If, as Petitioners claim, the General Assembly intended that this [surcharge] reduction obligation remain, no alteration would have been necessary. Thus, we must conclude that the material changes in the provision evidence a clear legislative intent to abolish the statutory cap.”
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.