Newton v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “the precise dividing line between substance and procedure ‘has proven elusive’” and that “[s]tatutes relating to evidence present particularly difficult problems, as such statutes, like rules of evidence, often have both substantive and procedural aspects”
• observing that “the precise dividing line between substance and procedure ‘has proven elusive’ ” and that “[statutes relating to evidence present particularly difficult problems, as such statutes, like rules of evidence, often have both substantive and procedural aspects”
• recognizing requirement that expert testimony in a medical malpractice action is a substantive component of the common law reflecting “a policy decision ... that the plaintiffs substantive burden of production could only be met by a particular kind of evidence”
• stating, in a separation of powers analysis, “we must ... determine whether the challenged statutory provision is substantive or procedural”
• requiring proof of standard of care, breach of that standard of care, causation, and injury, through use of expert witness testimony
• regarding substantive law, “[t]he legislature has plenary power to deal with any topic unless otherwise restrained by the Constitution”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).