Pottebaum v. Hinds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 50 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t offends public policy to say that a citizen invites private liability merely because he happens to create a need for those public services.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Juhl v. Airington · Waggoner v. Troutman Oil Co., Inc.

2. “[T]he public policy of the State of Georgia requires adoption of a Fireman’s Rule in Georgia broader than that stated in Ingram.... [W]e now hold that it is a public policy of the State of Georgia that a public safety employee cannot recover for injuries caused by the very negligence that initially required his presence in an official capacity and subjected the public safety employee to harm; that public policy precludes recovery against an individual whose negligence created a need for the presence of the public safety employee at the scene in his professional capacity. “That is not to say that firemen or police are barred from recovery in all instances in which they are injured by negligent acts. The relevant inquiry is whether the negligently created risk which resulted in the fireman’s or policeman’s injury was the very reason for his presence on the scene in his professional capacity. If the answer is yes, then recovery is barred; if no, then recovery may be had.” Furthermore, it is important to note that our holding in this case addresses only the initial negligence which requires the public safety employee’s presence in his official capacity. We make no rule in this case concerning liability for subsequent acts of negligence or for intentional wrongdoing.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. White v. Edmond · Gould v. George Brox, Inc.

3. ““While the term ‘fireman’s rule’ is used generically, this common law doctrine, in actuality, is a product of various legal theories resulting in several different rules. We determine public policy supports adoption of a narrow rule denying recovery to a firefighter and policeman whenever their injuries are caused by the very wrong that initially required the presence of an officer in his official capacity and subjected him to harm.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Iowa v. Darryl B. Shears Jr. · Babes Showclub, Jaba, Inc. v. Lair