Lanphier v. Avis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A careful study of Kelso and Hardy reveals what may be the critical distinction between the two cases. In Kelso , the device generated information from which the doctor then had to make a diagnosis and plan a course of treatment. The apparent misinterpretation of the information would not qualify as use of tangible property within the TTCA. In Hardy , however, the purpose of the monitor was not necessarily limited to generating information. Rather, the monitor in Hardy was intended to signal complications and its purpose required that it be constantly monitored. In other words, the negligence in Kelso related to the proper interpretation, whereas the alleged negligence in Hardy was the failure to properly use the device for the very purpose it was intended. The distinction between the two fact circumstances seems so finite (an alarm on a monitor when a critical set of circumstances arises versus no alarm on an EKG machine to signal the examiner of the test results when irregularities are present) that the results appear to be in conflict. We believe the analysis in Kelso to be more persuasive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cervantes v. McKellar

2. “A judgment in an action or a settlement of a claim under this chapter bars any action involving the same subject matter by the claimant against the employee of the governmental unit whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 959, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 3242 , 3305 (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.106). 6 . Casteel argues that his claim for malicious prosecution is only against the officers. However, a review of the pleadings reveals that, in paragraph 26 of his Original Petition, under”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Singleton v. Casteel

3. “The reference to “plea to the jurisdiction” is not to a particular procedural vehicle but to the substance of the issue raised. Thus, an interlocutory appeal may be taken from a refusal to dismiss for want of jurisdiction whether the jurisdictional argument is presented by plea to the jurisdiction or some other vehicle, such as a motion for summary judgment. By the same token, an interlocutory appeal cannot be taken from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction that does not raise an issue that can be jurisdictional.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division