Davies v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Mascaro v. Youth Study Center (1987), Crowell v. City of Philadelphia (1992)
25 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 Carroll v. County of York · Robson v. Penn Hills School District · Wimbish v. School District · Shields v. Pittsburgh School District · Usher v. Upper Saint Clair School District
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Acts which may impose liability. — The following acts by a local agency or any of its em ployees may result in the imposition of liability on a local agency: (3) Real Property. — The care, custody or control of real property in the possession of the local agency. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The vehicle liability exception states that the government should not be immune from suits involving ‘the operation of any motor vehicle in the possession or control of the local agency. ’ Appellants maintain that the trial court erred in concluding that this action applies only to situations where the vehicle is actually operated by a government employee or agent. They argue that this section imposes liability also in situations where the vehicle is under the constructive rather than actual control of the government as it allegedly was in the case at hand. “We cannot agree with this interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S. §8542(b)(1) . . . “Clearly, in order for this section to be applicable to the case before us, there must be an allegation that the vehicle was operated by a school official. . . ”Id. at 147-8, 503 A.2d at 94-5 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Clearly, in order for this section to be applicable to the case before us, there must be an allegation that the vehicle was operated by a school official. Since it is undisputed that the car in question was driven by a student at the time of the accident, we must reject appellants’ argument.”
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.