Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Ark. 1239 - Parish v. Pitts

Parish v. Pitts’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

160
cited by 160 later decisions
21
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 149 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education (1973), Hicks v. State (1976)

2 federal appellate · 149 state decisions — followed in 21 states

6501968197019801990200020102020decided

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 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District · 18 Ill. 2d 11 - Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 · Holytz v. City of Milwaukee · Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621 · 96 So. 2d 130 - Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach

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

  1. “[p]recedent governs until it gives a result so patently wrong, so manifestly unjust, that a break becomes unavoidable.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * Although the field of the common law is not primarily the Legislature’s problem, it is the primary concern of this Court. Accordingly, the Court, not the Legislature, should extirpate those rules of decision which are admittedly unjust, for it is to the judiciary that the power of government is given to provide protection against individual hurt. Green, Freedom of Litigation, 38 Ill.L.Rev. 355, 382 (1944). “Considerations of public policy are not and never have been for determination by the Legislature alone. Holmes, The Common Law, 35 (1881). Especially is this so when the individual’s rights are put in question by governmental activity as here. We are now of the opinion that re-examination of the principle of governmental immunity from tort action is the duty of this Court and should be undertaken at this time.” 244 Ark. 1239 at 1242, 1243 , 429 S.W.2d at 47 (1968).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"We would make plain that this decision imposes liability * * * only for the imperfect, negligent, unskillful execution of a thing ordained to be done. No tort action will lie against them for those acts involving judgment and discretion; which are judicial and legislative or quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative in nature. The exercise of discretion necessarily carries with it the right to be wrong. It is only for ordinary torts committed in the execution of the activities decided upon that a tort action will lie; not for the decision itself." [12]”
    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.