Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 634 NE2D 767 - Voit v. Allen County

Voit v. Allen County’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2016

19 state decisions

120199420002010decided

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 Blessing v. United States · Peavler v. BD. OF COM'RS MONROE CTY. · Greathouse v. Armstrong · Malachowski v. Bank One, Indianapolis · Mullen v. City of Mishawaka

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

  1. “Under the [planning-operational] test, if the decision of the governmental entity was a ‘planning’ activity, that is a function involving the formulation of basic policy characterized by official judgment, discretion, weighing of alternatives, and public policy choices, then the decision is discretionary and immune under I.C. 34-4-16.5-3(6). Government decisions about policy formation which involve assessment of competing priorities, a weighing of budgetary considerations, or the allocation of scarce resources are also planning activities. On the other hand, if the function is ‘operational’, for example decisions regarding only the execution or implementation of already formulated policy, the function is not discretionary under the statute and no immunity attaches.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I)f the decision of the governmental entity was a "planning" activity, that is a function involving the formulation of basic policy characterized by official judgment, discretion, weighing of alternatives, and public policy choices, then the decision is discretionary and immune under [Ind.Code § 34-138-8-8(7) ]. Government decisions about policy formation which involve assessment of competing priorities, a weighing of budgetary considerations, or the allocation of searee resources are also planning activities. On the other hand, if the funetion is "operational," for example decisions regarding only the execution or implementation of already formulated policy, the function is not discretionary under the statute and no immunity attaches.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “a conscious balancing may be demonstrated by evidence showing that the governmental entity considered improvements of the general type alleged in plaintiffs complaint.”
    5 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.