Hunt v. Goeckel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A 'claim ... arising from a contract’ is often a dispute over the existence of the alleged contract as well as the liability flowing from it. In order for the Board of Claims to accept jurisdiction over a particular cause of action, it necessarily must determine as a factual predicate whether there is a valid contract in existence. Like any other tribunal, the Board of Claims has the implicit right to decide every question which occurs in a cause of action over which it has jurisdiction. Id. at 239-40, 565 A.2d at 1155 . The Court went on to state: The mere fact that the validity of a contract may turn upon issues of statutory duty does not create a statutory right of action. Rather, the focus is upon the origin of the rights claimed. In the instant matter, Shovel's objective is to establish the contractual relationship. Shovel's right to pursue this objective derives necessarily from the rights and obligations created by the contract, not by the alleged violation of a statute by the [Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board] or the appellants. Shovel's action thus assumes the nature of a breach of contract action in which a traditional remedy for the breach, namely specific performance, is sought. The proper forum for this type of action, therefore, is the Board of Claims. Id. at 241 , 565 A.2d at 1156 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hanover Insurance Co. v. State Workers' Insurance Fund

2. “we note that the granting of bail is subject to conditions and may be modified pursuant to Rule 4008 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. [11] We note that the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the Commonwealth arising from contracts entered into with the Commonwealth where the amount in controversy is $300.00 or more. Section 4 of the Act of May 20, 1937, P.L. 728, as amended, 72 P.L. 4651-4. This means that the jurisdiction of the Board is triggered”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kutnyak v. Department of Corrections

3. “when the claimant relies upon the provisions of [a] contract in asserting the claim against the Commonwealth.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kutnyak v. Department of Corrections