429 Pa. Super. 273 - Panitz v. Behrend’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably 433 Pa. Super. 316 - Ludmer v. Nernberg (1994), 450 Pa. Super. 91 - Miketic v. Baron (1996)
30 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 Briscoe v. W · Leary v. United States · County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth · Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance · Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reasons for the absolute privilege are well recognized. A judge must be free to administer the law without fear of consequences. This independence would be impaired were he to be in daily apprehension of defamation suits. The privilege is also extended to parties to afford freedom of access to the courts, to witnesses to encourage their complete and unintimidated testimony in court, and to counsel to enable him to best represent his client’s interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The primary purpose of expert testimony is not to assist one party or another in winning the case but to assist the trier of the facts in understanding complicated matters.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harrison v. Roitman
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.