2011 Pa. Super. 201 - Commonwealth v. Koch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he difficulty that frequently arises in e-mail and text message cases is establishing authorship. Often more than one person uses an e-mail address and accounts can be accessed without permission. In the majority of courts to have considered the question, the mere fact that an e-mail bears a particular e-mail address is inadequate to authenticate the identity of the author; typically, courts demand additional evidence.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. of Pa. v. Mangel · 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 61 - TALLEY (OMAR) v. STATE

2. “[A]uthentication of electronic communications, like documents, requires more than mere confirmation that the number or address belonged to a particular person. Circumstantial evidence, which tends to corroborate the identity of the sender, is required.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tienda, Ronnie Jr. · Com. of Pa. v. Mangel

3. “[i]mplicit in these decisions is the realization that e-mails and text messages are documents and subject to the same requirements for authenticity as non-electronic documents generally. Koch , 39 A.3d at 1004 (citations omitted). The Koch Court additionally observed that "electronic writings typically show their source, so they can be authenticated by contents in the same way that a communication by postal mail can be authenticated.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. of Pa. v. Mangel · Gregury, J. v. Greguras, S.