10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Philadelphia Community Health Alternatives Aids Task Forcegreen2 sentences2022See Doe v. Philadelphia Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 2000 PA Super 6 , 745 A.2d 25, 27 , aff'd, 564 Pa. 264 , 767 A.2d 548 (2001). 2022See Doe v. Philadelphia Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 2000 PA Super 6 , 745 A.2d 25, 27 , aff'd, 564 Pa. 264 , 767 A.2d 548 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Philadelphia Community Health Alternatives Aids Task Forcegreen2 sentences2022See Doe v. Philadelphia Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 2000 PA Super 6 , 745 A.2d 25, 27 , aff'd, 564 Pa. 264 , 767 A.2d 548 (2001). 2022See Doe v. Philadelphia Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 2000 PA Super 6 , 745 A.2d 25 , 27, aff'd, 564 Pa. 264 , 767 A.2d 548 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Philadelphia Community Health Alternatives AIDS Task Forcegreen2 sentences2022See Doe v. Philadelphia Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 2000 PA Super 6 , 745 A.2d 25, 27 , aff'd, 564 Pa. 264 , 767 A.2d 548 (2001). 2022See Doe v. Philadelphia Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 2000 PA Super 6 , 745 A.2d 25 , 27, aff'd, 564 Pa. 264 , 767 A.2d 548 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
Doe v. Methodist Hospitalgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Doe v. Methodist Hospital, 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind.1997) (holding that, in order for a minimal disclosure to qualify as "publicity,” the person or persons to whom the information was disclosed "must have a special relationship with the plaintiff such that the disclosure would be particularly damaging.”); Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 202 Ill.App.3d 976 , 148 Ill.Dec. 303 , 560 N.E.2d 900, 903 (1990) ("[W]here a special relationship exists ... the disclosure may be just as devastating to the person even though the disclosure was made to a limited number of people.”); Johnson v. K Mart C | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Motorola, Inc.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., Doe v. Methodist Hospital, 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind.1997) (holding that, in order for a minimal disclosure to qualify as "publicity,” the person or persons to whom the information was disclosed "must have a special relationship with the plaintiff such that the disclosure would be particularly damaging.”); Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 202 Ill.App.3d 976 , 148 Ill.Dec. 303 , 560 N.E.2d 900, 903 (1990) ("[W]here a special relationship exists ... the disclosure may be just as devastating to the person even though the disclosure was made to a limited number of people.”); Johnson v. K Mart C 2009See, e.g., Doe v. Methodist Hospital, 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind.1997) (holding that, in order for a minimal disclosure to qualify as "publicity,” the person or persons to whom the information was disclosed "must have a special relationship with the plaintiff such that the disclosure would be particularly damaging.”); Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 202 Ill.App.3d 976 , 148 Ill.Dec. 303 , 560 N.E.2d 900, 903 (1990) ("[W]here a special relationship exists ... the disclosure may be just as devastating to the person even though the disclosure was made to a limited number of people.”); Johnson v. K Mart C | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. K Mart Corp.green2 sentences2009See, e.g., Doe v. Methodist Hospital, 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind.1997) (holding that, in order for a minimal disclosure to qualify as "publicity,” the person or persons to whom the information was disclosed "must have a special relationship with the plaintiff such that the disclosure would be particularly damaging.”); Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 202 Ill.App.3d 976 , 148 Ill.Dec. 303 , 560 N.E.2d 900, 903 (1990) ("[W]here a special relationship exists ... the disclosure may be just as devastating to the person even though the disclosure was made to a limited number of people.”); Johnson v. K Mart C 2009See, e.g., Doe v. Methodist Hospital, 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind.1997) (holding that, in order for a minimal disclosure to qualify as "publicity,” the person or persons to whom the information was disclosed "must have a special relationship with the plaintiff such that the disclosure would be particularly damaging.”); Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 202 Ill.App.3d 976 , 148 Ill.Dec. 303 , 560 N.E.2d 900, 903 (1990) ("[W]here a special relationship exists ... the disclosure may be just as devastating to the person even though the disclosure was made to a limited number of people.”); Johnson v. K Mart C | 1 | 1 |
MELENDEZ BY MELENDEZ v. City of Phila.green1 sentence1993Yates , 134 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 285, 578 A.2d at 611 (quoting Melendez by Melendez v. City of Philadelphia, 320 Pa.Superior Ct. 59, 65, 466 A.2d 1060, 1063-64 (emphasis in original)). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Musser
green
2 sentences1993This court has also adopted the special relationship exception to the no-duty rule which provides that “if the police enter into a special relationship with an individual, ... the general duty owing to the public is narrowed into a specific duty owing to that person, the breach of which can give rise to a cause of action for damages.” Id. at 174, 478 A.2d at 939-940 . 1992This court has also adopted the special relationship exception to the no-duty rule which provides that “if the police enter into a special relationship with an individual, ... the general duty owing to the public is narrowed into a specific duty owing to that person, the breach of which can give rise to a cause of action for damages.” Id., 84 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 174, 478 A.2d at 939-940 . | 3 | 1992–1993 |
Jordan, E. v. PSU
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 774 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Yates v. City of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence1993Yates , 134 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 285, 578 A.2d at 611 (quoting Melendez by Melendez v. City of Philadelphia, 320 Pa.Superior Ct. 59, 65, 466 A.2d 1060, 1063-64 (emphasis in original)). 3 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Rankin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
green
2 sentences1993In Rankin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporta tion Authority, 146 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 429, 606 A.2d 536 (1992), we noted that the narrow special relationship exception to the no-duty rule exists only where there are circumstances establishing a special relationship between the police and the crime victim. 1993In Rankin v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporta tion Authority, 146 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 429, 606 A.2d 536 (1992), we noted that the narrow special relationship exception to the no-duty rule exists only where there are circumstances establishing a special relationship between the police and the crime victim. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Williams v. State of California
green
2 sentences1986In Williams v. State, 34 Cal.3d 18 , 664 P.2d 137 , 192 Cal.Rptr. 233 (1983), the plaintiff, a passenger in an automobile, was injured when a heated brake drum from a passing truck was propelled through the car windshield. 1986In Williams v. State, 34 Cal.3d 18 , 664 P.2d 137 , 192 Cal.Rptr. 233 (1983), the plaintiff, a passenger in an automobile, was injured when a heated brake drum from a passing truck was propelled through the car windshield. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Duffy v. City of Philadelphia
neutral
2 sentences1985Furthermore, "the City had leased the Stadium to the Philadelphia Eagles [football club] and thus, can be said to have relinquished its exclusive duty of care, custody or control over the property as evidenced by the fact that additional security for the game was provided by private companies.” Id. at 167 n. 2. 1985Furthermore, "the City had leased the Stadium to the Philadelphia Eagles [football club] and thus, can be said to have relinquished its exclusive duty of care, custody or control over the property as evidenced by the fact that additional security for the game was provided by private companies." Id. at 167 n. 2. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.