Marino v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2013
2 federal appellate · 10 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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Soja v. Pennsylvania State Police · 371 F. Supp. 1096 - Bolden v. Pennsylvania State Police
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.
“In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary the State Police are subject to removal at the pleasure of'the appointing power. “[A]n individual, to have a property interest justifying the protection of the due process clause, must ‘have more than a unilateral expectation of [continued public employment],’ he must have ‘a legitimate claim of entitlement to it’.” DeWalt v. Barger, 490 F.Supp. 1262 , 1274 (M.D.Pa.1980), quoting Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). It is clear that once an enlisted member’s probationary period has expired, the trooper .has an interest in his continued employment for which due process requires a hearing. Bolden v. Pennsylvania State Police, 371 F.Supp. 1096 (M.D.Pa.1974). However, a cadet on probation although having some interest, is not entitled to the same procedures because this is not a substantial interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Petitioners claim that they possess a property right to continued public em ployment and that the termination of their employment without a hearing is a violation of due process. We disagree. State Police employees who are not on probation are entitled to a hearing with counsel before the Court-Martial Board, the opportunity to present witnesses, to receive findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law, and to have these proceedings transcribed before they can be dismissed. These widely divergent procedures indicate that the legislature wished to allow enlisted members a hearing before the Court-Martial Board and did not wish to afford new cadets and troopers this opportunity to be heard.”
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.