Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 A2D 1205 - Biro v. Commonwealth

Biro v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2015

6 state decisions

40199820002010decided

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 Federal Deposit Insurance v. Board of Finance & Revenue of Commonwealth · Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Board of Finance & Revenue · Cooper 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he refund or credit of tax ... shall be made only where the person who has actually paid the tax files a petition for refund with the department within three years of the actual payment of the tax to the Commonwealth.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A specific provision of the Tax Code requires that refund of tax shall be made only where the taxpayer files a petition for refund with the Department of Revenue within three years of the actual payment of the tax to the Commonwealth. 72 P.S. § 7253(a). Our Supreme Court has noted that such limitations periods are absolute conditions to the right to obtain relief and are necessary to avoid great uncertainty in the budgetary planning and fiscal affairs of the Commonwealth. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Board of Finance and Revenue, 368 Pa. 463, 469-470 , 84 A.2d 495, 498-99 (1951). In any case, equitable principles cannot vary the statutory requirements and this Court lacks the power to alter the explicit language of the statute. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Board of Finance and Revenue, 431 Pa. 1, 10 , 244 A.2d 767, 772 (1968). While we are sympathetic to petitioners, any burdensome effect of § 253(a) of the Tax Code is a matter for the legislature to resolve.”
    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.