Freach v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways (1978)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 122 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 Aldinger v. Howard · Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education · Montgomery v. Philadelphia · Matson v. Margiotti · BROWN v. Commonwealth
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No person and no governmental or recognized nonprofit health or welfare organization or agency shall be held civilly or criminally liable for any diagnosis, opinion, report or any thing done pursuant to the provisions of this act if he acted in good faith and not falsely, corruptly, maliciously or without reasonable cause; provided, however, that causes of action based upon gross negligence or incompetence shall not be affected by the immunities granted by this section.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the legislature shall, by law direct.” 65”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The complaint ... avers that the defendant Shovlin, among others at Farview, failed properly to treat William Wright and unlawfully terminated supervision and released him from confinement; that the release of Wright was improperly approved by agents of the parole division; and that Wright’s release was in part due to a failure on the part of the defendants McEwen and Hughes to inform the officials at Farview of a court order requiring Wright’s commitment. We are satisfied that the complaint, despite its patent prolixity, makes allegations of gross negligence or incompetence as to the defendants Shovel, Burke, McEwen, and Hughes in the performance of acts pursuant to the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.