423 Pa. Super. 51 - Commonwealth v. Christopher’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2015
2 federal appellate · 9 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 Katz v. United States · Commonwealth v. Blystone · Commonwealth v. Henlen
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As we agree with appellee’s argument, and concur with the well-reasoned conclusion of the hearing court, we adopt the rationale underlying the order, which states: THE COURT: The Defendant argues that the caseworker had no expectation of privacy — confidentiality and relies on Commonwealth v. Henlen, a Supreme Court case which has to do with oral communications. Section 5703 defines oral communication as any oral communications uttered by a person possessing an expectation, but such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. Intercept is defined in Section 5702 as aural, A-U-R-A-L, acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any electronic or mechanical or other device. So, the real issue in this case comes down to the question of whether or not of [sic] the caseworker had an expectation of confidentiality. Henlen is very close and we believe we’re bound by it. We believe, under the facts of this case, that the caseworker did not have an expectation of confidentiality under the circumstances. Particularly stated and testified at the Preliminary Hearing that there was nothing to be said to the Defendant that he couldn’t tell anybody else. That was his testimony and we’re bound by that. So, ... [w]e find, as a fact, that the caseworker had no expectation of confidentiality and, therefore, the Defen dant did not violate the wiretap act section, the section of the statute followed by wiretappi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“23 Pa.C.S. § 6339 provides for the confidentiality of report concerning instances of child abuse, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6336(c) and 6340 monitor the release of that information. Therefore, absolute confidentiality is not guaranteed to individuals being investigated pursuant to a suspected child abuse and neglect complaint (“SCAN”). Authorized Child Protective Services Department officials, treating officials, guardians ad litem, courts with competent jurisdiction, the Attorney General, law enforcement officials conducting investigations, the individuals who report suspected abuse, county commissioners, and the subjects of the reports are entitled to summaries of information contain in the file as well as written reports.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]ny oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such interception.”
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.