Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth (2003), Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth (2005)
37 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 Baker v. Carr · Powell v. McCormack · William Marbury v. James Madison · United States v. Brewster · Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The members of the General Assembly shall in all cases, except treason, felony, violation of their oath of office, and breach or surety of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he parameters of taxpayer standing in this Commonwealth have been defined by our Supreme Court in the case of Application of Biester v. Thornburgh [ 487 Pa. 438 , 409 A.2d 848 (Pa. 1979) ]. In that case, our Supreme Court stated that the "purpose of the requirement of standing is to protect against improper plaintiffs." Id. [at 851]. In order to meet this requirement, a plaintiff must allege and prove an interest in the outcome of the suit, which surpasses "the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law." Id. [ (citation omitted) ]. To surpass the common interest of all citizens, the interest must be substantial, direct, and immediate. Id. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court recognized that certain cases exist in which the facts warrant the granting of standing to taxpayers where their interests arguably are not substantial, direct and immediate. Biester [ 409 A.2d at 852 ]; Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth [ 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 , 328 (Pa. 1986) ]. The relaxing of those interest requirements in certain cases where there is little causal connection between the action complained of and the alleged injury is best explained by the basic policy considerations underlying taxpayer standing. Consumer Party [ 507 A.2d at 328 ]. Our Supreme Court articulated these policy considerations in Biester as follows: "The ultimate basis for granting standing to taxpayers must ... be sought outside the normal language of the courts. Taxpayers' litigatio”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We believe the circumstances of the instant case establish the above five factors and therefore warrant the grant of standing to appellants under the narrow exception outlined in Biester . This case presents a prime example of governmental action, which would otherwise go unchallenged because the very individuals who enacted the legislation are directly and beneficially affected and are thus not inclined to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. Furthermore, judicial relief is appropriate since the determination of the constitutionality of an act is a function ultimately left to the courts. Moreover, here redress through other channels is unavailable. There is no administrative agency which can provide relief and the legislators themselves are unlikely to provide a meaningful mechanism for redress. Lastly, there are not other persons better situated to assert the claim because all those who are directly and immediately affected by the [Public Official] Compensation Law are beneficially affected and have not brought, and will not bring a cause of action. Thus, there are no possible plaintiffs who can assert a substantial, direct and immediate interest.”
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.