Medusa Corp. v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• leaving re-analysis of an appropriate penalty to the expertise of the specialized agency
• leaving re-analysis of an appropriate penalty to the expertise of the specialized agency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Pork Motel, Corp. v. Kansas Department of Health & Environment
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1983-12-02· cited 100×
• American Auto Wash, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-04-30· cited 9×
• Franklin Township v. Goetz
  Adams County Court of Common Pleas· 1982-09-20

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Yick Wo v. Hopkins
  Supreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 3,789×
• Snowden v. Hughes
  Supreme Court· 1944-03-13· cited 1,478×
• Air Pollution Variance Bd. of Colo. v. Western Alfalfa Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1974-05-20· cited 192×
• Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-03-25· cited 60×
• Commonwealth v. Lewis
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1971-06-28· cited 20×
• Commonwealth v. Locust Point Quarries, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1979-01-24· cited 17×
• Western Alfalfa Corp. v. Air Pollution Variance Bd.
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 1973-04-03· cited 12×
• Western Alfalfa Corp. v. AIR POLLUTION VARINANCE BD.
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 1975-05-22· cited 9×