DiPino v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 46 district · 138 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 216 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]o determine whether an officer had probable cause, under that conception, the reviewing court necessarily must relate the information known to the officer to the elements of the offense that the officer believed was being or had been committed. The officer, of course, must undertake the same analysis in determining, in the first instance, whether the person may lawfully be arrested.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pringle v. State · 155 Md. App. 353 - Conboy v. State

2. “Under [the LGTCA], a local governmental entity is liable, up to $200,000 per person, $500,000 for all claims, for its own tortious conduct. It is also liable for tort judgments for compensatory damages rendered against its employees, if the judgment arises from tortious conduct committed within the scope of the employment. Under [CJ] §§ 5-302(b) and 5-303(b) ..., such a judgment, even though rendered against the employee, must be paid by the governmental entity. Unless the employee is found to have acted with actual malice, the plaintiff may not execute against the employee’s assets. If the employee is found to have acted with actual malice, however, the judgment may be executed against the employee’s assets, and the entity may seek indemnification for any sums it has paid, for compensatory damages, under [CJ] § 5-303(b)(l). [CJ] [s]ection 5-303(e) adds that, in addition to any defense available to it under the LGTCA, the entity “may assert on its own behalf any common law or statutory defense or immunity in existence as of June 30, 1987 [the effective date of LGTCA], and possessed by its employee for whose tortious act or omission the claim against the local government is premised and a local government may only be held liable to the extent that a judgment could have been rendered against such an employee under this subtitle.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Md. App. 570 - Ransom v. Leopold · 202 Md. App. 59 - Board of Education v. Marks-Sloan

3. ““Before a governmental representative in this State is relieved of liability for his negligent acts, it must be determined that the following independent factors simultaneously exist: (1) the individual actor, whose alleged negligent conduct is at issue, is a public official rather than a mere government employee or agent; and (2) his tortious conduct occurred while he was performing discretionary, as opposed to ministerial, acts in furtherance of his official duties.” “Once it is established that the individual is a public official and the tort was committed while performing a duty which involves the exercise of discretion, a qualified immunity attaches; namely, in the absence of malice, the individual involved is free from liability.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richardson v. McGriff · Lovelace v. Anderson