Opinion ID: 2381571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Clearance Interval Case Law.

Text: Given the state of the record, the cases in this jurisdiction on which the judge relied are readily distinguishable. In each of them, the governmental decision in question was different from, and more traditionally discretionary than, the setting of the clearance interval. Moreover, as I read these cases, none of them involved a situation in which the evidence showed that no policy discretion was exercised in fact. [12] As my colleagues have pointed out, jurisdictions which have directly addressed the issue ... whether the setting of a traffic light clearance interval is a discretionary function have gone both ways. Op. at 448, n. 9. In my judgment, however, the decisions which are said to support the District's position are readily distinguishable, or unpersuasive when compared to the dissents, or both. [13] The cases rejecting the discretionary function defense, on the other hand, appear to me to constitute well-considered, albeit non-binding, precedents. [14]