Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): A.2d 22, 25 (1984). Accordingly, “the privilege extends not only to communications made in open court, but also encompasses pleadings and even less formal communications such as preliminary conferences and correspondence between counsel in furtherance of a client’s interest.” Pawlowski v. Smorto, 403 Pa.Super. 71, 588 A.2d 36, 41 (1991) (citations omitted). In fact, the absolute privilege has been extended to statements made by private parties to law enforcement officials for the purpose of initiating the prosecution of criminal charges, see id. at 42, as well as to statements made to mental health officials for the purpose of initiating involuntary commitment proceedings, Marino v. Fava, 915 A.2d 121, 124 (Pa. Super. 2006). Cf. Schanne v. Addis, 632 Pa. 545, 121 A.3d 942, 952 (2015) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted; emphasis added). Our 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding (B) holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school (C) holding that the judicial privilege does not apply to an allegation concerning a school teacher made by an adult former student before commencement of any quasijudicial proceeding and without an intent that it lead to a quasijudicial proceeding (D) holding that a statutory basis is necessary for an administrative body to initiate reconsideration of its prior final quasijudicial decisions (E) holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding
Output (English): holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding