2004 Pa. Super. 180 - Jones v. Faust’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A collateral order is an order separable from and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 71 - Gormley v. Edgar · 2008 Pa. Super. 113 - T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc.

2. “It is at this point that the question arises as to what degree of privacy and confidentiality is to be afforded medical information where no privilege is involved. Our Supreme Court has recognized that the privacy interests protected by the federal Constitution receive the same protections from Pennsylvania’s Constitution. In [In re June ] 1979 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury, supra, the Court quoted Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 , 97 S.Ct. 869 , 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1976), for the proposition that [wjhile its sources and limits may be disputed, there can be no doubt that the United States Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Cases concerned with the constitutional protection of privacy “have in fact involved at least two different kinds of interests. One is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in making certain kinds of important decisions.” [In re June ] 1979, supra at 77 (citations omitted). As in [In re June ] 1979, the John and Jane Does whose records are sought here have a privacy interest in the disclosure of matters personal to them. However, unlike the situation in that case where the members of the grand jury who were to hear the evidence were sworn to secrecy, no such oath would be required here. Moreover, as noted above, the information sought is for impeachment purposes, an objective which could be accomplished by other, less intrusive, means, e.g., the contrary testimony of another phys”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Buckman v. Verazin · Cooper v. Schoffstall

3. “[T]he law will not consider evidence that a person has done a certain act at a specific time as probative of a contention that he has done a similar act at another time. While the commission of an act charged cannot be proved by showing the commission of a like act at a different time, an exception to this rule exists where knowledge or intent is a material fact to be proved.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Buckman v. Verazin