Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 Md. App. 282 - Davis v. DiPino

99 Md. App. 282 - Davis v. DiPino’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

8 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably DiPino v. Davis (1999), Shoemaker v. Smith (1999)

8 district · 24 state decisions

220199420002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Hunter v. Bryant · Owen v. City of Independence · Pulliam v. Allen

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

  1. “has an important operative effect on Maryland constitutional and non-constitutional claims against sworn law enforcement officers of a municipal corporation’s police department. It assigns to the plaintiff the burden of pleading — and proving — that the defendant-officer acted with “malice.” ... In claims based on Maryland law, malice is established by proof that the defendant-officer “intentionally performed an act without legal justification or excuse, but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced by hate, the purpose being to deliberately and willfully injure the plaintiff.” Leese v. Baltimore County, 64 Md.App. 442, 480 , 497 A.2d 159 (1985).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “an official of a municipal corporation while acting in a discretionary capacity, without malice, and within the scope of the official’s employment or authority shall be immune as an official or individual from any civil liability for the performance of the action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““[Davis] did knowingly and willfully advise an unknown white male as to the identity and occupation of [DiPino] and ... Alice N. Brumbley. [DiPino] and Brumbley were working in an undercover capacity on Wicomico St. Ocean City Worcester County Md. While entering a vehicle [DiPino] and Brumbley observed [Davis] state to an unknown white male ‘Look those two girls are nares.’ Nares being a derogatory street term for a narcotics officer. This statement was said in a loud enough voice as so the [detectives] approximately] 3 yds away could hear and any passerby could also hear placing the [detectives] in extreme danger and compromising their cover.””
    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.