Grant v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 792 So. 2d 392 - Ex Parte Cranman (2000), Nance by and Through Nance v. Matthews (1993)
35 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 Barnes v. Dale · 413 So. 2d 391 - DeStafney v. University of Alabama · 356 So. 2d 1196 - Gill v. Sewell · Bell v. Chisom
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`These two cases illustrate the governmental interest at stake in discretionary function immunity: the ability of public officers to”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[Grant and Gaston] must exercise a degree of discretion in the process of ranking various projects by priority. Ideally, the slightest defect would be repaired immediately so that the highways would, at all times, be maintained at the greatest level of safety. Reality, however, poses limitations on the time, manpower, and financial resources available for making the needed repairs. It is under these limitations that the defendants must assess the relative priority to be given the various defects that are discovered, and rank their repair so as to achieve the optimum level of safety possible under all circumstances."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Discretionary function immunity is just what its label implies: immunity from tort liability afforded to public officials acting within the general scope of their authority in performing functions that involve a degree of discretion. . . . "In Bell v. Chisom , 421 So.2d 1239 , 1241 (Ala. 1982), this Court discussed at length the elements of, and factors for determining, the applicability of discretionary function immunity in a given case:”
2 later decisions 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.