3 So. 3d 1035 - Wallace v. Dean’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 51 So. 3d 445 - Jaimes v. State (2010), 94 So. 3d 452 - Hayes v. State (2012)
2 federal appellate · 61 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 Indian Towing Company v. United States · 69 Cal. 2d 782 - Johnson v. State of California · 436 So. 2d 93 - Combs v. State · 371 So. 2d 1010 - Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty. · 593 So. 2d 500 - McCain v. Florida Power Corporation
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hen addressing the issue of governmental liability under Florida law, we have repeatedly recognized that a duty analysis is conceptually distinct from any later inquiry regarding whether the governmental entity remains sovereignly immune from suit notwithstanding the legislative waiver present in section 768.28, Florida Statutes.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f a duty of care is owed, it must then be determined whether sovereign immunity bars an action for an alleged breach of that duty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, the Sheriffs deputies did not attempt to enforce any law and certainly were not engaged in the protection of the general public; instead they affirmatively sought to provide a service (a 911 safety cheek) to a specific individual, Brenda Wallace (the decedent).... Therefore, the public-duty doctrine associated with category II of Trianon, and any exceptions thereto, are inapposite to the case at bar. We thus consider whether the Sheriff owed the decedent a common-law duty of care pursuant to traditional principles of tort law without having to engage in any inquiry concerning the public-duty doctrine or whether a “special duty” or “special relationship” existed between the Sheriff and the decedent. ... [[Image here]] This Court has long adhered to the common-law doctrine that “[i]n every situation where a man undertakes to act, or to pursue a particular course, he is under an implied legal obligation or duty to act with reasonable care, to the end that the person or property of others may not be injured by any force which he sets in operation, or by any agent for which he is responsible. If he fails to exercise the degree of caution which the law requires in a particular situation, he is held liable for any damage that results to another, just as if he had bound himself by an obligatory promise to exercise the required degree of care.... [E]ven ‘where a man interferes gratuitously, he is bound to act in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the circumstances and ”
2 later decisions 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.