McDuffie v. Roscoe’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 2006
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Barnes v. Dale · 413 So. 2d 391 - DeStafney v. University of Alabama · 356 So. 2d 1196 - Gill v. Sewell · Grant v. Davis · 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"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. While [ALDOT's] `Field Operations Manual' provides criteria by which these decisions are to be made, in the final analysis a significant degree of discretion is left to the defendants in their exercise of *Page 456 this particular function. We find that the appellants' duties associated with the repair and maintenance function substantially partake of planning level activities involving the exercise of discretion, and the defendants are therefore entitled to substantive immunity as a matter of law on plaintiffs' claims for failure to maintain and repair . . . . " We also find that the same is true with respect to the claim that the defendants were negligent in failing to properly inspect the shoulder of the road and discover the defect. Both the `Maintenance Manual' and the `Field Operations Manual,' publications adopted to guide [ALDOT] workers in the performance of their duties, mandate frequent inspection of the roads to discover defects. . . . "The duty to inspect the r”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"On the one hand, in DeStafney [v. University of Alabama , 413 So.2d 391 (Ala. 1981),] . . . we had no difficulty in rejecting the immunity claim of the individual defendant, an aide at the University day care center who allegedly allowed the plaintiff's child to fall off playground equipment. This defendant's function clearly required due care rather than difficult decision making. On the other hand, we accepted the claim of immunity in Gill v. Sewell , [ 356 So.2d 1196 (Ala. 1978)], where the director of a work release center was sued for his decision to release a convicted felon who shot the plaintiff. That decision was an exercise of discretion central to the defendant's function, and accordingly, in DeStafney we noted, 'unquestionably, Gill falls *Page 1306 squarely within § 895D(3)(a) of the Restatement. . . .' "”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Restatement, supra , comment d at 413. Without some degree of immunity, public officers may decide not on the basis of policy but of avoiding personal liability or vexatious suits. Their motive for doing so may be larger than in the private sector, for governmental action often has unusual potential to injure or to affect large numbers of people. See G. Bermann,”
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.