Russell v. Barrett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that operation of a sheriff’s department, including the training and supervision of deputies, is a discretionary function
• finding that a sheriff’s responsibility to “instruct, train, and supervise” deputies is a “discretionary governmental function”
• finding that operation of a sheriff’s department, including the training and supervision of deputies, is a discretionary function
• collecting cases describing discretionary acts, including high-speed pursuits, firing weapons, etc.
• “[T]his Court has consistently, held that the operation of a police department, including the degree of training and supers vision to be provided its officers, is a discretionary governmental function ....”
• “However, the 1991 amendment specifies the actions that remove the protection of immunity—those done with actual malice or with actual intent to cause injury. Our Supreme Court has construed the term ‘“actual malice” [as requiring] a deliberate intention to do wrong.’” (emphasis added

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).