Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 524 FSUPP 1174 - Miller v. Carson

Miller v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 2007
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Gates v. Collier · Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager · Knapp v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. · United States v. Hall · Marshall v. Crotty

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

  1. “Article X, Section 13 of the Florida Constitution incorporates the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, authorizing the state to waive immunity by general law if it so desires. The legislature accepted this invitation by enacting [section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1979)], which permits persons to sue the state for any tort committed by an employee of a state agency or subdivision while acting within the scope of his employment. A reading of Section 768.28 leads the Court to the conclusion that the Florida Legislature did not intend the statute to encompass actions for injuries sustained by a municipality as a result of acts or omissions attributable to a state agency. Rather, the statute focuses upon more mundane types of torts, i.e., those causing property damage, personal injury or wrongful death. That this is true is apparent from ... Section 768.28(1), which provides that the state shall be liable only if a private person would be liable under the same circumstances in accordance with the general law of the state. Obviously, there is no set of facts under which a private person could be liable to the City Defendants for refusing to take custody of mentally incompetent inmates committed to [the Department]. With the exception of Section 768.28, there is no provision of Florida law that would even arguably confer authority upon this Court to award money damages to the City Defendants.”
    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.