357 Pa. Super. 127 - DeAngelo v. Fortney’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., Inc. (1992), O'Donnell v. United States (1989)
2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Smith v. Doss · Vogel v. W. T. Grant Co. · Klein v. Raysinger · Sofka v. Thal · 343 Pa. Super. 330 - Chicarella v. Passant
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.
““Upon demurrer, a reviewing court must regard as true all well pleaded facts and reasonable inferences deducible therefrom.” Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 144 , 470 A.2d 507, 508 (1983). Conclusions of law, however, do not bind a reviewing court. Cunningham v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 340 Pa.Super. 130, 133 , 489 A.2d 875, 877 (1985). It is in this light that we examine the complaint to determine whether it sets forth a cause of action which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. Id. If the complaint fails to set forth a cause of action, a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer is properly sustained. Id.; Rubin v. Hamot Medical Center, 329 Pa.Super. 439, 441 , 478 A.2d 869, 870 (1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“we must accept as true all the well-pleaded material facts set forth in the complaint and all reasonable inferences deducible from those facts. Accepting these facts and inferences, we then determine whether the pleader has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and we will affirm the grant of a demurrer only if there is certainty that no recovery is possible. All doubts are resolved in favor of the pleader. Furthermore, by filing preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, appellees have admitted the factual allegations of the complaint for purposes of the demurrer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[Plaintiff] also attempted to state a cause of action against [defendant] for harassment. Pennsyl vania courts have not heretofore recognized a separate tort of harassment. We decline to do so in the instant case, being of the opinion that an action for invasion of privacy will ordinarily be an adequate remedy for highly offensive conduct which unreasonably interferes with another’s right to be left alone.” DeAngelo at 132 , 515 A.2d at 596 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.