green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Envirotest Partners v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
See McMullan v. Wohlgemuth, 453 Pa. 147 , 308 A.2d 888 (1973), appeal dismissed, 415 U.S. 970 , 94 S.Ct. 1547 , 39 L.Ed.2d 863 (1974) (Our Supreme Court upheld the denial by the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare of a request seeking the names of all public assistance recipients in the City of Philadelphia, since the Public Welfare Code prohibited release of welfare recipients’ names).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hatchard v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.
(2×)
Accord McMullan v. Wohlgemuth, 453 Pa. 147, 162-63 , 308 A.2d 888, 896 (1973), appeal dismissed 415 U.S. 970 , 94 S.Ct. 1547 , 39 L.Ed.2d 863 (1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. Stafford
(2×)
See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., v. Jerome, supra, 387 A.2d at 433 , citing McMullan v. Wohlgemuth, 415 U.S. 970 , 94 S.Ct. 1547 , 39 L.Ed.2d 863 (1974), dismissing for want of substantial question, 453 Pa. 147 , 308 A.2d 888 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Margraves v. State
See, e.g., Martinez v. State, 501 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), appeal dism’d for want of a substantial federal question, 415 U.S. 970 , 94 S.Ct. 1547 , 39 L.Ed.2d 863 (1974); Young v. State, 374 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1964).” Norris, 902 S.W.2d at 442 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Norris v. State
(2×)
See, e.g., Martinez v. State, 501 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), appeal dism'd for want of a substantial federal question, 415 U.S. 970 , 94 S.Ct. 1547 , 39 L.Ed.2d 863 (1974); Young v. State, 374 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.Cr.App.1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McMullan
v.
Wohlgemuth, Secretary of Welfare of Pennsylvania
v.
Wohlgemuth, Secretary of Welfare of Pennsylvania
No. 73-586.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 1974.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.