Spillman v. Beauchamp’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2006
2 federal appellate · 15 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 North American Cold Storage Company v. City of Chicago · Miller v. Horton · Sardo v. McGrath · Pearson v. Zehr · Lowe v. Conroy
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems to us that in order to impose personal liability there should be some element of personal fault on the part of the officer or agent, such as negligence or deliberate wrongdoing. “The ordinary rule is that a public officer when acting in good faith within the scope of his authority is not personally liable for damages sustained by a member of the public as a result of his action, unless he acted negligently, that is, failed to meet the standard of the ordinarily prudent man. 67 C.J.S. Officers § 125, pp. 417, 418; J. F. Schneider & Son v. Watt, Ky., 252 S.W.2d 898 . In our opinion this is a proper rule, and if under a particular set of facts liability would not exist under this rule liability should not be imposed on the officer simply because the government cannot be made to pay. (Emphasis added.) ****** “The appellees have argued that even if there exists a basis for personal liability on their part it can be enforced only by proceedings under the Board of Claims Act, KRS 44.070 to 44.160, and not by action in the circuit court. However, we do not find in the Board of Claims Act any evidence of an intent that it should apply to claims against a state officer or agent individually.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, we do not find in the Board of Claims Act any evidence of an intent that it should apply to claims against a state officer or agent individually.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Guffey v. Cann
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.