Gallo v. Barile’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 392 Ill. App. 3d 399 - Morris v. Harvey Cycle and Camper, Inc. (2009), 172 Conn. App. 717 - Bruno v. The Travelers Companies (2017)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 52 state decisions
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 Malley v. Briggs · Petyan v. Ellis · DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven · Kelley v. Bonney · Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our determination is dictated by the underlying purpose of the immunity afforded at common law to those who provide information in connection with judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, namely, that in certain situations the public interest in having people speak freely outweighs the risk that individuals will occasionally abuse the privilege by making false and malicious statements. ... Put simply, absolute immunity furthers the public policy of encouraging participation and candor in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. This objective would be thwarted if those persons whom the common-law doctrine was intended to protect nevertheless faced the threat of suit . In this regard, the purpose of the absolute immunity afforded participants in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is the same as the purpose of the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the state .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although some states have concluded that the statements of complaining witnesses [made to law enforcement] are subject to absolute immunity ... we disagree that an absolute privilege for such statements is warranted.... Although the detection of crime and the apprehension of criminals are extremely important goals, their achievement does not outweigh the harm that is likely to inure to an individual who is falsely and maliciously accused of criminal misconduct.... [Moreover] because the reporting of false information [to law enforcement] necessarily interferes with the intelligent exercise of official discretion ... false reports invariably waste limited law enforcement resources and deflect police time and resources away from the investigation and detection of real crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is well settled that communications uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged [as] long as they are in some way pertinent to the subject of the controversy.... The effect of an absolute privilege is that damages cannot be recovered for the publication of the privileged statement even if the statement is false and malicious.”
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.