Cooper v. Rutherford County’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2018
2 federal appellate · 16 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 Johnson v. Oman Construction Company, Inc. · Powell v. City of Nashville · Buckholtz v. Hamilton County · Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Allen · Vance v. Shelby County
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The theory of nuisance has been urged in the Courts of Tennessee for many years, in an effort to circumvent the bar of governmental immunity. In many of the reported cases, the conclusion that the condition of the roadway or bridge complained of constituted a trap was alleged in support of the nuisance theory. In Vance v. Shelby County, 152 Tenn. 141 , 273 S.W. 557 (1925), the missing bridge was alleged to be a dangerous pitfall, snare, death trap and nuisance. In Buckholtz v. Hamilton County, 180 Tenn. 263 , 174 S.W.2d 455 (1943), an overflow of “clear” water across the highway that was said to appear innocuous but was alleged to be a death trap in support of the theory that the creation of a nuisance on the public road by the county superseded the bar of sovereign immunity- Both Vance and Buckholtz reject the nuisance theory, as have other reported cases too numerous to mention. In short, counties, as distinguished from municipalities, have consistently avoided liability in such circumstances. ( 531 S.W.2d at 784 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to all governmental entities as defined herein, provided that as to those governmental entities exempting themselves, as provided for in the preceding subsection, this chapter will not apply to claims or actions arising after January 1, 1976.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We assume Rutherford County to be exempt pursuant to T.C.A. § 23-3303 by the failure of appellant to raise the issue in response to the County’s plea of governmental immunity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Hayes
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.