Commonwealth v. Vartan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “confidential deliberations of law or policymaking, reflecting opinions, recommendations or advice.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tribune-Review Publishing Co. v. Department of Community & Economic Development · In Re Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice

2. “Prohibition is a common law writ of extremely ancient origin[.] ... Its principal purpose is to prevent an inferior judicial tribunal from assuming a jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested in cases where damage and injustice would otherwise be likely to follow from such action. It does not seek relief from any alleged wrong threatened by an adverse party; indeed it is not a proceeding between private litigants at all but solely between two courts, a superior an[d] an inferior, being the means by which the former exercises superintendance [sic] over the latter and keeps it within the limits of its rightful powers and jurisdiction. * * * The writ of prohibition is one which, like all other prerogative writs, is to be used only with great caution and forebearance and as an extraordinary remedy in cases of extreme necessity to secure order and regularity in judicial proceedings if none of the ordinary remedies provided by law is applicable or adequate to afford relief. It is a writ which is not of absolute right but rests largely in the sound discretion of the court. It will never be granted where there is a complete and effective remedy by appeal, certiorari, writ of error, injunction, or otherwise....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Public Defender's Office v. Venango County Court of Common Pleas

3. ““When a court[,]... in making an interlocutory order in a matter in which its final order would be within the jurisdiction of an appellate court, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter, it shall so state in such order. The appellate court may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such interlocutory order.” 42 Pa.C.S. §702(b); Commonwealth ex rel. Unified Judicial System v. Vartan, 557 Pa. 390 , 733 A.2d 1258 (1999); Donnelly v. SEPTA, 708 A.2d 145 (Pa. Commw. 1998).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of Henderson v. City of Philadelphia