Windrick v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]here is no,clear, palpable and plain violation of the Constitution contained in these provisions, (citation omitted) Even if the validity of legislation is fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control, (citation omitted) As we stated in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Forte, 29 Pa. Commw. 415, 420 , 371 A.2d 526, 528 (1977): “ ‘Our reading . . . discloses no evidence of any legislative intent to make the receipt of notice the event which triggers the running of the time for appeal. Had the legislature, which is not unfamiliar with the term “receipt” or its legal effect, intended receipt of notice to be the triggering event, it would have so stated.’ Zimmer v. Susquehanna County Planning Commission, 14 Pa. Commw. 435 , 322 A.2d 420 (1974).” Id. at 403, 471 A.2d at 926 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trinkle Sales & Service v. PennDOT