873 So. 2d 1059 - Davis v. Latch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “the voluntary doing by [a] motorist of an improper or wrongful act, or with knowledge of existing conditions, the voluntary refraining from doing a proper or prudent act when such an act or failure to act evinces an entire abandonment of any care, and heedless indifference to results which may follow and the reckless taking of chance of accident happening without intent that any occur.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cole v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · Vo v. Hancock County

2. “Officer Santa Cruz was driving his patrol car in pursuit of a white vehicle he witnessed driving erratically when he came to the intersection of Highway 609 and Lemoyne Boulevard. Officer Santa Cruz had turned on his blue lights and "wigwag lights" and reduced his speed prior to entering the intersection. Officer Santa Cruz testified that he put on his brakes as soon as he saw the Plaintiff's vehicle but was unable to stop due to the gravel and debris on the road. The Court finds no indication that Officer Santa Cruz acted with deliberate disregard to the consequences of attempting to cross the intersection. To the contrary, the Court finds that Officer Santa Cruz was aware of the nature of the intersection and took specific steps to avoid the collision. Officer Santa Cruz's decision to go through the intersection on the right side of the highway did not exhibit a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cole v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety · 930 So. 2d 472 - Cole v. MISSISSIPPI DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY

3. “(1) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim: . . . . (d) Based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the discretion be abused; . . . . (g) Arising out of the exercise of discretion in determining whether or not to seek or provide the resources necessary for the purchase of equipment, the construction or maintenance of facilities, the hiring of personnel and, in general, the provision of adequate governmental services; . . . . (v) Arising out of an injury caused by a dangerous condition on property of the governmental entity that was not caused by the negligent or other wrongful conduct of an employee of the governmental entity or of which the governmental entity did not have notice, either actual or constructive, and adequate opportunity to protect or warn against; provided, however, that a governmental entity shall not be liable for the failure to warn of a dangerous condition which is obvious to one exercising due care; or (w) Arising out of the absence, condition, malfunction or removal by third parties of any sign, signal, warning devise, illumination device, guardrail or median barrier, unless the absence, condition, malfunction or removal is not corrected by the governmental entity responsible for its maintenance within a reasonable tim”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dotts v. Pat Harrison Waterway Dist.