Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 S.W.2d 570 - Johnson v. Smith

Johnson v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 1994
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on City of Memphis v. Bettis · Tipton Cty. Bd. of Ed. v. Dennis · Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Glass

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

  1. “The apparent intent of the legislature is to restrict the personal liability of governmental employees if the governmental entity itself is liable and then only to the extent of the entity’s limit of liability by statute or insurance coverage, whichever is greater. Accordingly, an injured party would be entitled to a full monetary recovery from the entity up to its limits and then from the employee for any surplus. TCA 29-20-202 specifically places liability upon governmental entities for in juries to a third person resulting from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by an employee while within the scope of his employment. Construing TCA 29-20— 202,29-20-310 and 29-20-403 together, it would appear that the legislative intent is to hold the governmental entity liable for compensatory damages up to $50,000.00 [or the amount of insurance coverage, whichever is greater], and to bar any action for compensatory damages against the employee up to $50,000.00. If the action exceeds $50,000.00, then suit could be brought against both the entity and the employee with the entity liable for the first $50,000.00 compensatory damages and the employee liable for any excess.”
    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.