Barber v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 district · 27 state decisions

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

1. ““A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s employment shall not be liable for damages resulting from: “(e) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee, whether or not the discretion is abused and regardless of the level of discretion involved.” K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 75-6104.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Allen v. Board of Com'rs of County of Wyandotte · 18 Kan. App. 2d 641 - Lamb v. City of Elsmore

2. “"Jackson [v. City of Kansas City, 235 Kan. 278, 286 , 680 P.2d 877 (1984),] is the most recent case on point. There, the City of Kansas City appealed a judgment for damages which was entered against the City following a jury trial. The City contended that the failure of one of its employees to abide by a departmental regulation concerning the operation of emergency vehicles was the equivalent of the failure to enforce an ordinance or regulation, and thus liability was barred by 75-6104(c). We did not agree. Relying on Cansler v. State, 234 Kan. 554 , 675 P.2d 57 (1984), we explained that tortious conduct outside the scope of the regulation or ordinance, which would be negligence at common law, is an actionable tort for which the government is not immune. We quoted from Cansler : “We construed K.S.A. 1981 Supp. 75-6104(c) to provide an exemption from claimed liability only where claimant’s sole asserted claim of causal negligence is the public entity’s enforcement or failure to enforce a law. That section does not provide an exemption where the agency, in enforcing or failing to enforce a law, commits some additional tortious act or omission which would be negligence at common law, and which act or omission causes damage.” 234 Kan. at 568 .’ (Emphasis supplied.) 235 Kan. 285 -86. “The plaintiff in the case now before us makes no showing that the actions of the City of Topeka were outside the scope or purview of the ordinance. In accordance with the ordinance, an investigation ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Collins v. Heavener Properties, Inc.

3. ““One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect [sic; perform] his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gooch v. Bethel A.M.E. Church