Riggio v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2023
9 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 435 Pa. Super. 93 - Accu-Weather, Inc. v. Prospect Communications, Inc. · 435 Pa. Super. 360 - Hodges v. Rodriguez · 432 Pa. Super. 276 - Schriver v. Mazziotti · 383 Pa. Super. 223 - McGonagle v. Union Fidelity Corp. · 439 Pa. Super. 283 - Smith v. Smith
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An attempt to divine the intent of the legislature by reference to the common understanding of public body is not only unnecessary, it also begs the question. Notwithstanding the everyday meaning of ‘public body,’ this term was expressly defined by our legislature for purposes of the Whistleblower Law.... The statute plainly and unequivocally makes any body ‘funded in any amount by or though Commonwealth ... authority’ a public body for purposes of the Whistle-blower Law. Where the language of a statute is unambiguous on its face, we are bound to give effect to that language.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]ny other body which is ... funded in any amount by or through Commonwealth....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Within the definition of ‘wrongdoing’, there is a requirement that the violation of the law or regulation be one that is designed to protect the interest of the public or employer. While the definition uses the phrase ‘to protect the interest of the public’, and that could be interpreted to apply to any statute or ordinance as used in the context of retaliation taken by an employer because of an employee’s work performance, that requirement means that a statute or regulation is of the type that the employer is charged to enforce for the good of the public or is one dealing with the internal administration of the governmental employer in question.”
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.