Valdez v. Amaya’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The City’s plea in abatement was based upon the contention that Manuel Amaya as City Marshal was exercising police power in making the arrest of Sabas Valdez and, therefore, the City could not be held liable for Amaya’s negligence under the doctrine of respon-deat superior, and further, that if the Marshal was not acting in his official capacity as a police officer, then the City could not be held liable upon any theory, as he had no authority to act for the City in any other capacity. “The trial court properly sustained the plea in abatement. Whitefield v. City of Paris, 84 Tex. 431 , 19 S.W. 566 , 15 L.R.A. 783 ; Archer v. City of Cisco, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W.2d 955 ; Owensby v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 934 ; 30-B Tex.Jur., Municipal Corporations, § 648. “Appellants contend that the City is liable for the negligence of the Marshal in failing to furnish Sabas Valdez immediate emergency medical treatment at the time he was placed in the City jail, when it was obvious that he needed such treatment. We cannot agree. The Marshal, in arresting Sabas Valdez and placing him in jail, was exercising police power and, regardless of what his negligence was in this connection, the City is not liable for the damages caused by such negligence, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The authorities cited above clearly support this rule.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luvaul v. City of Eagle Pass