Misfeasance in public office (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Misfeasance in public office" in English language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank English rank

2^nd place

26^th place

20^th place

30^th place

24^th place

1,812^th place

995^th place

367^th place

243^rd place

12^th place

11^th place

3,544^th place

1,912^th place

953^rd place

647^th place

austlii.edu.au

Davis, Jim (2010). "Misfeasance in Public Office, Exemplary Damages and Vicarious Liability" (PDF). Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum (64). 61. Subsequently, the House of Lords, in Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 3),35 agreed with the New Zealand Court of Appeal that it is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant has acted in the knowledge that his or her act would probably injure the plaintiff.

Weir & Ors v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor, 2192 Ch, 285 (EWHC 2005) ("(Mr Justice Lindsay) ...As I say, no direct evidence was given that he had that intent, no good reason why he should have had it was established and there were many and various other and acceptable reasons why he should have acted as he did. In all the circumstances I am quite unable to hold that he had the required intent.").

Evans, R. C. (1982). "Damages for Unlawful Administrative Action: The Remedy for Misfeasance in Public Office". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 31 (4): 644. doi:10.1093/iclqaj/31.4.640. JSTOR 759402. The general principle should be that a public officer is one who discharges a duty in which performance the public are interested and who is paid out of funds provided by the public.
Allott, Philip (March 2001). "EC Directives and Misfeasance in Public Office". The Cambridge Law Journal. 60 (1): 5. doi:10.1017/S0008197301620610. JSTOR 4508734. Retrieved 25 August 2021.

Evans, R. C. (1982). "Damages for Unlawful Administrative Action: The Remedy for Misfeasance in Public Office". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 31 (4): 644. doi:10.1093/iclqaj/31.4.640. JSTOR 759402. The general principle should be that a public officer is one who discharges a duty in which performance the public are interested and who is paid out of funds provided by the public.
Allott, Philip (March 2001). "EC Directives and Misfeasance in Public Office". The Cambridge Law Journal. 60 (1): 5. doi:10.1017/S0008197301620610. JSTOR 4508734. Retrieved 25 August 2021.

Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (UKHL 18 MAY 2000) ("The case law reveals two different forms of liability for misfeasance in public office. First there is the case of targeted malice by a public officer i.e. conduct specifically intended to injure a person or persons."), Text.

Osborne, Alistair (15 October 2005). "′Embarrassing stink′ that will track back to Westminster". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 22 September 2020. To prove their case, Sumption said, they would have to prove Byers deliberately made Railtrack insolvent ″with the specific aim of harming the shareholders″. After a summer′s deliberation, Mr Justice Lindsay decided the shareholders could not prove that.

Finance (11 July 2005). "The 300-year-old beginnings of Byers' day in court". Telegraph. Retrieved 21 November 2013.

"Railtrack shareholders accuse Byers". The Guardian. London. 27 June 2005. Retrieved 22 September 2020. Alleging ″targeted malice″, Mr Rowley said there had been conduct by a public officer which was on the face of it lawful, but which was rendered unlawful by his acting in bad faith with the intention of injuring a person, or persons, or class of persons.