Kings County Fire Insurance v. Stephens

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding there is no basis for distinguishing the scope of the Speech and Debate Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution from that in the United States Constitution
• holding Pennsylvania speech and debate immunity is “essentially identical” in language and scope with its federal counterpart (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 6).
• holding Pennsylvania speech and debate immunity is “essentially identical” in language and scope with its Federal counterpart (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 6)
• relying on such exceptions to the mootness doctrine in declining to dismiss
• no basis for distinguishing scope of state Speech or Debate Section applicable to General Assembly from that of federal clause applicable to Congress
• no basis for distinguishing scope of state Speech or Debate Section applicable to General Assembly from that of federal clause applicable to Congress

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).