King v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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. ““ ‘Employee of the government’ includes officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation. “ ‘Acting within the scope of his office or employment’, in the case of a member of the military or naval forces of the United States, means acting in line of duty. June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 982 ; May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 124, 63 Stat. 106”.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gordon v. United States · 291 F. Supp. 386 - McSwain v. United States

2. ““ * * * It seems perfectly clear that, in driving his own automobile on this trip home on deferred leave, Lieutenant Talley was acting, not within the scope of his office or employment as a lieutenant in the Marine Corps, but for his own use and benefit and subject to the control of no one but himself. * * * When he chose to drive his own ear, instead of availing himself of commercial transportation, he was acting in furtherance of his own purposes, not those of the government; and his action in driv-. ing the car cannot reasonably be said to have been action taken within the scope of his employment or office.” Turning to the present case, the statement cannot be supported that cases involving military personnel using their own automobiles in travelling from one duty station to another do not involve the “dual purpose rule” but rather the question whether the use of the automobile was in the scope of employment. The cases do not sustain this dichotomy, with different rules applicable to “dual purpose” situations in a proposed distinction from cases like the present. It is clear from the above quotation that the court in Eleazer considered the lieutenant’s use of his personal car, in that situation, as “acting in furtherance of his own purposes, not those of the government.” That case, like most others concerned with this problem, treated the question as involving “dual purpose” activity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooner v. United States

3. “In a case of this nature, the United States cannot escape liability if a private person under similar circumstances should be held liable. There are no special statutory provisions that regulate or govern the responsibility of persons owning and operating airplanes. In the absence of such statutes, the rules of law applicable generally to torts govern. The ordinary rules of negligence and due care are invoked.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 109 Wash. 2d 581 - Crosby v. Cox Aircraft Company