Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 Ark. 334 - Downey v. Toler, Judge

Downey v. Toler, Judge’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2007

18 state decisions

601948195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Cook, Comm. of Revenues v. Ark.-Mo. Power Corp. · Reed v. Wilson · Edwards v. Jackson · Leonard v. Henry · Hackney v. Southwest Hotels, Inc.

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

  1. ““There is no necessary or irreconcilable conflict between the two laws here involved. In the first the Legislature was dealing with the venue of suits to enforce liability for official misconduct of officers. Such misconduct may consist of many things, such as (in case of peace officers) failure properly to serve legal writs, false imprisonment, and, as in the case at bar, the wrongful or excessive use of force in making an arrest. The Legislature determined that such actions against officers, for obvious reasons of public policy, ought to be brought in the county where the cause of action originated. There is no invincible repugnancy between the two laws. Both may stand and be permitted to operate within their respective orbits, as prescribed by the Legislature.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “. . [W]e conclude that, for the purposes of determining venue in actions against them, for acts done in their official capacity (as alleged in this case by the plaintiffs in the circuit court), the members of the Arkansas State Police are State officers within the purview of § 1397, Pope’s Digest [Ark. Stats. § 34-201], and can be sued for official acts only in the county of the official residence of the Arkansas State Police, which is Pulaski County.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.