Murphy v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2006
5 federal appellate · 6 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 Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. · Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Ass'n · 262 Pa. Super. 473 - Junk v. East End Fire Department · Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., Zinc Smelting Division
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Commission’s power to fashion remedies is virtually plenary and exclusive. ... As our Supreme Court noted in the case of Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Alto-Reste Park Cemetery Association, 453 Pa. 124 , 306 A. 2d 881 (1973), our scope of review of a Commission decision to order a particular remedy or not is limited. There the court noted “that the expertise of the Commission in fashioning remedies is not to be lightly regarded [,] ” id. at 134 , 306 A.2d at 887 , and concluded that Commission orders pertaining to remedies should not be disturbed on appeal “ ‘unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act.’ ” Id. at 134 , 306 A.2d at 887 (emphasis in original) quoting Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203, 216 (1964)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“On or about to wit (sic), December 22, 1970 the complainant alleges that the respondent Company engages in unlawful employment practices which are discriminatory with respect to female employees, because of their sex, in hiring, assignment, seniority, transfer, salary, overtime, promotion, denial of training and layoff. It is further alleged that the respondent Union concurs in and aids and abets the discriminatory practices of the respondent Company.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... the respondents consorted in the lay-off of the complainant because of her sex, FEMALE, and have”
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.