Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 Cal. App. 2d 307 - White v. Brinkman

23 Cal. App. 2d 307 - White v. Brinkman’s Empirical Analysis

1937

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
6
states following
February 1996
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 1996 · most notably Cooper v. O'Connor (1938), Montgomery v. Philadelphia (1958)

3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions

2701937194019501960197019801990decided

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 Pargoud v. United States · Yaselli v. Goff · Burt v. . Smith · Wight v. Rindshopf · Smith v. Parman

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

  1. ““. . . The exemption of judicial or qwim'-judicial officers from civil liability for acts done in performance of their official duties has been established not primarily for the protection of such officers, but as a settled rule of public policy for the protection of the public, and the better assurance of fair and impartial administration of justice, without fear or favor, in the protection of life and property. The immunity applies even despite malicious or corrupt conduct in the exercise of jurisdiction. “The defendant Thompson is joined as a tort-feasor in his capacity as city manager. The city charter is a state statute of which judicial notice may be taken; and in the defendant’s brief there is quoted section 28 of the charter. That section makes the manager responsible to the council for the efficient administration of all the affairs of the city. And with him rest the power and the duty ‘to see that all laws and ordinances are duly enforced,’ he being ‘declared to be beneficially interested in their enforcement, and to have the power to sue in the proper court to enforce them.’ As the chief executive and person in authority over the building inspector, he stands alongside Brinkman, and is favored with the same immunity. As an illustration of the application of the general rule, reference may be had to Downer v. Lent, 6 Cal. 94 [ 65 Am. Dec. 489 ], an action brought by a pilot whose license had been revoked by the pilot commissioners, and, as was alleged, wrongfully an”
    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.