Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 PACOMMW 278 - Roderick v. Commonwealth

Roderick v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
January 2007
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2007

5 state decisions

30198419902000decided

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 Ziccardi v. Commonwealth · 37 Pa. Commw. 598 - McCluskey v. Commonwealth · Gateway School District v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board

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

  1. “[T]he crucial question is whether petitioners have standing as individuals to bring these unfair practice charges to force the implementation of an arbitration decision when their union has refused to bring the action. In McCluskey v. Department of Transportation, ..., 37 Pa.Cmwlth.598, 391 A.2d 45 ([Pa.Cmwlth.] 1978), this court determined that an individual does not have the right to have his grievance arbitrated and that allowing this would seriously impair the process of collective bargaining between employers and unions. Furthermore, in Ziccardi v. Department of General Services, Bureau of Buildings and Grounds, 500 Pa. 326 , 456 A.2d 979 (1982) our Supreme Court found that a public employee, ex parte, did not have standing to enforce an agreement when the union refused to proceed to arbitration, and that the union has broad discretion in determining whether or not to pursue the remedy. Here the union pursued the grievance but the agreement clearly reserved the subject of classification, other than downgrading, for advisory, not binding arbitration. We find that petitioners lack standing as individuals to force the implementation of an advisory arbitration award.”
    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.