55 Cal. 2d 224 - Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 338 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 385 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Rowland v. Christian (1968), 69 Cal. 2d 782 - Johnson v. State of California (1968)
25 federal appellate · 338 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Barr v. Matteo · 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District · 54 Cal. 2d 632 - Fifield Manor v. Finston · 18 Cal. 2d 33 - Imperial Ice Co. v. Rossier · Davis v. Hearst
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 385 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although it may not be possible to set forth a definitive rule which would determine in every instance whether a governmental agency is liable for discretionary acts of its officials, various factors furnish a means of deciding whether the agency in a particular case should have immunity, such as the importance to the public of the function involved, the extent to which government liability might impair free exercise of the function, and the availability to individuals affected of remedies other than tort suits for damages.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage““[bjecause of important policy considerations, the rule has become established that government officials are not personally liable for their discretionary acts within the scope of their authority even though it is alleged that their conduct was malicious. [Citations].” We have no doubt that this analysis leads inevitably to the conclusion in the case at bench that the decision of Kelley and Velasquez to institute disciplinary proceedings against Kemmerer was a policy decision involving the exercise of discretion entitling them to immunity under Government Code section 820.2. The decision whether or not to initiate discipline proceedings and what discipline to impose is placed initially on the department head and the decision is entirely within his discretion. The decision involves the exercise of analysis and judgment as to what is just and proper under the circumstances and is not purely a ministerial act.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“1 ‘‘ The statements allegedly made to the press and to members of the public were not confined to reports of charges that were being made; they purported to be statements of fact and were beyond the scope of the trustees’ powers. In making these statements the three trustees were not within the immunity rule, and a cause of action is stated against them. The case of Hardy v. Vial, 48 Cal.2d 577 [ 311 P.2d 494 ], relied upon by defendants, is distinguishable because the school defendants involved there did not make statements to the public but only to three nonschool persons who filed false charges against the plaintiff with an appropriate administrative body in carrying out an alleged conspiracy with the officials. . . . They cannot claim immunity insofar as they made or caused to be made defamatory statements concerning plaintiff to members of the public which were not merely reports of official action but instead purported to be statements of fact within their personal knowledge.””
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.