Taboas v. Mlynczak’s Empirical Analysis
149 F.3d 576 · 1998
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Osborn v. Haley (2007), Stokes v. Cross (2003)
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Mitchell v. Forsyth · Johnson v. Jones · Behrens v. Pelletier · New Jersey v. New York · Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] denial of the United States' motion for substitution under the Westfall Act 6 [creating FTCA immunity] is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A motion for substitution may be decided on the face of the complaint (akin to a motion to dismiss) when the movant contends that, even accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, the defendant acted within the scope of employment .... In the alternative, the motion for substitution may be decided by reference to affidavits and other evidence outside the pleadings (akin to a summary judgment motion) if the movant contests the facts as pled and the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to scope of employment.... The more difficult question is how to proceed when the motion for substitution contests the facts pled in the complaint, as in a motion for summary judgment, and the summary judgment papers reveal disputed factual issues. In such a case, the district court may hold an evidentia-ry hearing to resolve material factual disputes related to the scope of employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(emphasis added). 472 U.S. at 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806. In other words the collateral order doctrine does not permit an immediate appeal of a trial court's denial of qualified immunity when the court's summary judgment order rests on a determination that there are genuine issues of fact requiring a trial. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 , 319-320, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995); see also Taboas v. Mlynczak, 149 F.3d 576 , 579; Bakalis, 125 F.3d at 578; Rambo, 68 F.3d at 207.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garvin v. Wheeler
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.