149 Pa. Commw. 81 - Factor v. Goode’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In any action against a local agency or employee thereof for damages on account of an injury caused by the act of the employee in which it is judicially determined that the act of the employee caused the injury and that such act constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct, the provisions of section! ] ... 8546 (relating to defense of official immunity) ... shall not apply.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Delate v. Kolle · 827 F. Supp. 1193 - Weinstein v. Bullick

2. “It has long been the law in this Commonwealth that high public officials are exempted by the doctrine of absolute privilege from all civil suits for damages arising out of false defamatory statements and even from statements motivated by malice, provided the statements are made in the course of the scope of the high official’s authority or within his or her jurisdiction. Montgomery; Rok v. Flaherty, 106 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 570, 527 A.2d 211 (1987), appeal denied, 517 Pa. 628 , 538 A.2d 880 (1988). The courts have sought to strike a balance by declaring that the public interest does not demand that all public officials be entitled to absolute privilege, but that only ‘high ranking officers’ be so protected. Montgomery; Rok. The absolute privilege has as its purpose ‘the protection of society’s interest in the unfettered discharge of public business and in full public knowledge of the facts and conduct of such business.’ Montgomery, 392 Pa. at 183 , 140 A.2d at 103 . ‘Absolute [privilege] is thus a means of removing any inhibition which might deprive the public of the best service of its officers and agencies.’ Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Suppan v. Kratzer

3. “When reviewing a trial court order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. In determining whether to sustain preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, all well-pleaded facts and inferences which may be reasonably deduced therefrom must be accepted as true. Since the sustaining of a demurrer results in the denial of a claim or dismissal of a suit, it should be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Pa. Commw. 176 - Cumberland Publishers, Inc. v. Carlisle Area Board of School Directors