366 Pa. Super. 482 - Sobel v. Wingard’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 417 Pa. Super. 316 - Rutherfoord v. Presbyterian-University Hospital (1992), 401 Pa. Super. 467 - Yetterant v. Ward Trucking Corp. (1991)
27 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 Corabi v. Curtis Publishing Co. · 334 Pa. Super. 295 - Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc. · Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet · 340 Pa. Super. 253 - Gordon v. Lancaster Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n · 350 Pa. Super. 68 - Baker v. Lafayette College
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In addition, ... [a]n employer has an absolute privilege to publish defamatory matters in notices of employee terminations. DeLuca v. Reader, 227 Pa.Super. 392 , 323 A.2d 309 (1974); Agriss, supra. This absolute privilege was extended in Agriss to include publications of defamatory material in warning letters. Moreover, evaluations of an employee by an employer are deemed to be consented to by the employee. Baker v. Lafayette College, 350 Pa.Super. 68 , 504 A.2d 247 (1986). Consent is an absolute privilege. Baker, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a statement is defamatory if it tends to harm an individual's reputation so as to lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.”
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.