423 Pa. Super. 619 - Iafrate v. Hadesty’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2012 · most notably Commonwealth v. Queen (1994), In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC (2012)
2 federal appellate · 14 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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts · Raphan v. United States · Rosenblatt v. Baer
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions.” 418 U.S. at 351 . Accord Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Assoc., 443 U.S. 157, 165 , 99 S.Ct. 2701 , 61 L.Ed.2d 450 (1979).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A public controversy is not simply a matter of interest to the public; it must be a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public or some segment of it in an appreciable way. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that essentially private concerns or disagreements do not become public controversies simply because they attract attention. To determine whether a controversy indeed existed ... the judge must examine whether persons actually were discussing some specific question. A general concern or interest will not suffice. The court can see if the press was covering the debate, reporting what people were saying and uncovering facts and theories to help the public formulate some judgment.... If the issue was being debated publicly and if it had foreseeable and substantial ramifications for non-participants, it was a public controversy. (citations omitted)”
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.