Dayoub v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2006
12 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 In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. · Schlesinger Appeal · Commonwealth v. Thorp, Reed & Armstrong
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Administrative tribunals must be unbiased and must avoid even the appearance of bias to be in accordance with the principles of due process. (Citation omitted.) In Schlesinger Appeal, 404 Pa. 584 , 172 A.2d 835 (1961), the Supreme Court wrote: ‘Moreover, a predilection to favor one side over the other is not required in order to vitiate a judicial proceeding as being violative of due process. Merely, “a possible temptation to the average man as judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true” is sufficient.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process . . . that due process applies to administrative agencies just as it does to courts . . . that administrative tribunals must be unbiased and must avoid even the appearance of bias to be in accordance with principles of due process. Dayoub v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Dental Council and Examining Board, 453 A. 2d 751 (Pa. Commonwealth 1982)””
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.