Pajewski v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2005 · most notably West v. Keve (1978), 172 W. Va. 743 - Pittsburgh Elevator Co. v. West Virginia Board of Regents (1983)
4 federal appellate · 8 district · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4042 (Prison Camera Reform Act of 2021) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District · 18 Ill. 2d 11 - Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 · Holytz v. City of Milwaukee · Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission · Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defense of sovereignty is waived and cannot and will not be asserted as to any risk or loss covered by the state insurance coverage program, whether same be covered by commercially procured insurance or by self-insurance, and every commercially procured insurance contract shall contain a provision to this effect, where appropriate.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Section 6511 states flatly that the defense of sovereignty “is waived” and “will not be asserted.” There is a limitation to that waiver, that is, it extends to “any risk or loss covered by the state insurance coverage program.” To determine what risk or loss is covered by that program, we look to § 6502 which directs the Committee to insure any type of risk to which the State may be exposed. Such risk may be protected by commercially acquired insurance or through a self-insurance program but, the •point is, it must be protected. In other words, the statutory plan, as we read it, contemplates a waiver of immunity eo-ex-tensive with the insurance program, which shall cover “any type of risk to which the State may be exposed.” In the view we take here of the Statute, the State is not entitled to dismissal of the complaint merely by showing, as it has done, that there is neither commercial nor self-insurance covering the liability for the kind of tortious conduct alleged in the complaint. Immunity is presumptively waived by § 6511 and it is, therefore, incumbent upon the State to provide all of the facts as to how the Committee met its responsibilities under 18 Del. C. ch. 65.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Turnbull v. Fink““A promisor bound to the United States or to a State or municipality by contract to do an act or render a service to some or all of the members of the public, is subject to no duty under the contract to such members to give compensation for the injurious consequences of performing or attempting to perform it, or of failing to do so, unless, (a) an intention is manifested in the contract, as interpreted in the light of the circumstances surrounding its formation, that the promisor shall compensate members of the public for such injurious consequences, .... ””
1 later decision 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.