Kirker v. Orange County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 559 So. 2d 284 - Baker v. Florida Nat. Bank · 575 So. 2d 280 - Armstrong v. H & C COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

2. “The very need to allege and prove willful, wanton or malicious conduct to sustain an action against [an employee] makes the case non-actionable against the county because of the statute which continues to surround governmental units with the shield of sovereign immunity in the face of such conduct.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 778 So. 2d 978 - Crocker v. Pleasant · 651 So. 2d 673 - Gonzalez v. Metro. Dade Cty. Health Trust

3. “The very need to allege and prove willful, wanton or malicious conduct to sustain an action against [an employee] makes the case non-actionable against the county.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 899 So. 2d 1161 - Rudloe v. Karl · 982 So. 2d 1196 - Hall v. Knipp