White v. Redevelopment Authority’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2014
19 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 Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp. · Hartmann v. Peterson · 59 Pa. Commw. 114 - Santoro v. City of Philadelphia · William Garlick & Sons, Inc. v. Lambert · In re Tax Claim Bureau
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following participants shall be entitled to a reasonable counsel fee as part of the taxable costs of the matter: (7) Any participant who is awarded counsel fees as a sanction against another participant for dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct during the pendency of a matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“As for the claim for an additional attorney fee, to reimburse the Paneks for the legal expense of trying to obtain payment pursuant to the Authority’s agreement, we are constrained to hold that the law does not provide such relief under the circumstances of this case. In their claim below for the additional attorney fee, the Paneks alleged that the Authority had been malicious, arbitrary and vexatious in delaying so long to pay the monies agreed upon. Based on that allegation the Paneks further asserted that Sections 2503(7) and (9) of the Judicial Code entitle them to the additional fee as a sanction against the Authority____ Section 2503(7), by its very terms, relates only to conduct that takes place during the pendency of a matter. The term ‘matter’ is defined by Section 102 of the Judicial Code to mean ‘[ajction, proceeding or appeal.’ Since, in the instant case, there was no ‘action’ with respect to the settlement agreement until the Paneks filed their petition, it cannot be said that the Authority’s conduct prior to that filing could come within the terms of Section 2503(7). In other words, the Authority’s conduct, in not paying the amounts agreed upon, was not conduct that took place during the pendency of the ‘matter’ concerning the agreement____ It certainly cannot be said that when the Authority delayed in paying the Paneks it was either commencing or defending a ‘matter.’ (footnotes omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * (7) Any participant who is awarded counsel fees as a sanction against another participant for dilatory, obdurate or vexatious conduct during the pendency of a matter ... * * * (9) Any participant who is awarded counsel fees because the conduct of another party in commencing the matter or otherwise was arbitrary, vexatious or in bad faith. (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.