Com. v. PLRB’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc. · Buffalo Township v. Jones · In Re Appeal of Cumberland Valley School District · Hollinger v. Department of Public Welfare · Winslow-Quattlebaum v. Maryland Insurance Group
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). The best indication of legislative intent is the language used in the statute. When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). We look beyond the language employed by the General Assembly only when the words are not explicit. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[0]ur Court has not hesitated to consider, and to follow, federal interpretation of the NLRA due to the similarity between the federal labor law and our own laws dealing with' labor relations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is charged with implementing and enforcing[.]”
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.