holding generalized claim that public disclosure of videotaped deposition could infringe upon appellant's privacy or cause him embarrassment insufficient to raise type of issue which is “too important to be denied review” under collateral order doctrine
How later courts described this case
- holding generalized claim that public disclosure of videotaped deposition could infringe upon appellant's privacy or cause him embarrassment insufficient to raise type of issue which is “too important to be denied review” under collateral order doctrine
- noting that tax returns are subject to privacy rights pursuant to state law and confidentiality under a federal statute
- individuals have “privacy interest in information contained in federal tax returns. . . . Such information is made confidential per federal statute”
- individuals have a “privacy interest in information contained in federal tax returns. … Such information is made confidential per federal statute.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*551 Judge BROBSON,
concurring and dissenting.
I join parts I, II, and III of the majority opinion. Because, after protracted appellate proceedings, I believe that this Court should decide the two issues that it accepted for appellate review in its February 4, 2015 Order granting allocatur, neither of which questions the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s analysis or application of the collateral order doctrine, I respectfully dissent from part IV of the majority opinion.