Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 SO2D 685 - Ex Parte Davis

Ex Parte Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 792 So. 2d 392 - Ex Parte Cranman (2000), E.L. ex rel. Love v. Wood (2002)

51 state decisions

330199820002010decided

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 · Wright v. Wynn · Ex Parte Ala. Dept. of Forensic Sciences · 548 So. 2d 451 - C & G Development v. Planning Com'n · McDuffie v. Roscoe

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

  1. “"[A] State officer or employee is not protected by discretionary immunity if in performing his discretionary functions he willfully, maliciously, fraudulently, or in bad faith injures someone. [Nonetheless,] [o]nce a defendant demonstrates that a plaintiff's claims arise from the defendant's performance of a discretionary function [i.e., a function now entitling the defendant to State-agent immunity], the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendant acted in bad faith or with malice or willfulness, in order to deny the defendant discretionary immunity from suit. The applicability of the doctrine of discretionary function must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and it is a question of law to be decided by the trial court."”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper means for achieving appellate review of a trial court's denial of absolute and discretionary-function immunity.”
    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.