78 Ohio App. 3d 508 - Brockman v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Anderson v. City of Massillon (2012), 148 Ohio App. 3d 41 - Shalkhauser v. City of Medina (2002)
78 state decisions
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 Temple v. Wean United, Inc. · Thompson v. McNeill · Hawkins v. Ivy · Osler v. City of Lorain · Commerce & Industry Insurance v. City of Toledo
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n intentional deviation from a clear duty or from a definite rule of conduct, a deliberate purpose not to discharge some duty necessary to safety, or purposely doing wrongful acts with knowledge or appreciation of the likelihood of resulting injury.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) The employee's acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. [R.C. 2744.03 (A)(6)(b).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(A) In a civil action brought against a political subdivision or an employee of a political subdivision to recover damages for injury, death, or loss to persons or property allegedly caused by any act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function, the following defenses or immunities may be asserted to establish nonliability: a * * * “(6) * * *, the employee is immune from liability unless one of the following applies: “(a) The employee’s acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of the employee’s employment or official responsibilities; “(b) The employee’s acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner[.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.