450 Pa. Super. 91 - Miketic v. Baron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 state decisions

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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Abuse of a conditional privilege is indicated when the publication is actuated by malice or negligence, is made for a purpose other than that for which the privilege is given, or to a person not reasonably believed to be necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose of the privilege, or includes defamatory matter not reasonably believed to be necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. Vislosky · Giusto v. Ashland Chemical Co.

2. “If you do so find in favor of Mr. Cooke and against the defendants, you must also determine for the purposes of damages whether the defendants acted intentionally, recklessly or negligently. A person acts intentionally when he publishes or makes a defamatory communication and he knows it is false_ A person negligently publishes a defamatory communication when a reasonable person under the circumstances would not have published the communication. This is where the person exhibits an absence of ordinary care and diligence in ascertaining the true facts. Members of the jury, you heard a reference to conditional privilege.... And a person who is privileged to publish false and defamatory communications may not abuse this privilege. It is for you to determine whether the defendant abused this privilege, and if you find he did, you may return a verdict in favor of Mr. Cooke and against Mr. Mackey and The Equitable. A communication written on a proper occasion under proper motive for a proper purpose in a proper manner and based upon reasonable cause is privilege. The privilege is abused, however, if Mr. Mackey made the communication with knowledge that it was false or made the communication recklessly, that is in utter disregard as to whether it was true or false. A privilege may also be false [sic] if the publisher exceeds the scope of the privilege. In other words, if the defamatory material is communicated to persons who do not share a common interest in the communication. In th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 11 - Cooke v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States

3. ““Consistent with a policy favoring private resolution of disputes between employers and employees, Pennsylvania law recognizes the absolute privilege of employers to publish defamatory matter in notices of employee termination. Thus, a letter articulating the reasons for an employee’s termination which is published only to the employee “ ‘may not be made the subject of an action in libel, regardless of whether the allegations of cause are true or false and regardless of the actual motive behind the dismissal.’ ” The purpose of the absolute privilege is to encourage the employer’s communication to the employee of the reasons for discharge by eliminating the risk that the employer will possibly be subject to liability for defamation. Where the privilege is abused by the employer’s publication of the defamatory material to unauthorized parties, the employer is no longer immune from liability.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 73 - Davis v. Resources for Human Development, Inc.