Keesling v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (1986), Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center (1995)
3 federal appellate · 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 Schneble v. Florida · Berkey v. Delia · Daniel South John Stouffer Jacob Fiery Daniel Middlekauff Senior and John Brewer v. The State of Maryland Use of Jonathan W Pottle · Honaker v. W. C. & A. N. Miller Development Co. · State v. Barnes
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Commandeering vehicle and directing participation in road block prohibited.—No police officer of this State, or of any political subdivision of this State, while acting within the scope of his authority in the enforcement of any law of the State or of the particular political subdivision, shall direct or order any operator, owner, or passenger of any motor vehicle within the limits of this State to assist him by commandeering the vehicle and directing the operator, owner, or passenger to participate in a road block in the apprehension of any person suspected of having committed or known to have committed a violation of law. (b) Damages or injuries from negligence of police officer.—If any police officer of this State, or of any political subdivision of the State while acting within the scope of his authority in the enforcement of any law of this State or of the particular political subdivision, directs the operator of any motor vehicle (other than a police vehicle) within the limits of this State to assist him in the enforcement of the law or in apprehending any person suspected of having or known to have committed a violation thereof, the State or the political subdivision, as the case may be, shall be liable for damages or injuries proximately caused by the negligence of the police officer; provided, however, that the defenses of contributory negligence and “last clear chance” shall be available to the State or political subdivision. (c) Damages or injuries from partici”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The officers suggested that the criminals make their escape in an unmarked vehicle; (2) the use of the beacon light and siren was a command to Keesling to stop which [the driver] did in obedience thereto; and (3) the officer’s approach to the vehicle and explanation to Keesling of what was happening amounted to a direction or order to Keesling to cooperate in the apprehension of the criminals. It is a question for the jury to decide whether this conduct of the police fell so far below the duty of police to protect the welfare of the public as to amount to negligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“police officers owe a duty of care to a plaintiff injured by suspected criminals fleeing the officers if the officer "set in motion a chain of events which they know or should have known would lead to ... [the plaintiff's] injury by the [party being pursued] or by the police effort to stop the vehicle."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.