Arneja v. Gildar’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2014
1 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 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 Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance · Holland v. Hannan · 327 Pa. Super. 418 - Smith v. Griffiths · Brown v. Collins · Alfred A. Altimont, Inc. v. Chatelain, Samperton & Nolan
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel it has some relation to the proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“You’re unnecessarily pursuing this case. You don’t understand the law. Where did you go to law school; you should go back to law school before you practice law. You don’t understand. You better learn your English, go to elementary school.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“two requirements must be satisfied: (1) the statement must have been made in the course of, or preliminary to a judicial proceeding; and (2) the statement must be related in some way to the underlying proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Messina v. Krakower
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.