Sunkett v. Misci’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
5 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he exception is if the officers are acting ‘outside the course and scope of their employment,’ in which case they are no longer representing the employer entity. Heffernan v. Hunter, 189 F.3d 405, 412 (3d Cir.1999). The same principles suggest that officers acting within the scope of their employment cannot conspire together. If Agent A and Agent B both act together to employ power that they wield only as a result of their service to Principal A, there is, in truth, only one actor, Principal A. Thus ... officers cannot conspire together unless they have the power to carry out the purposes of the conspiracy when acting outside the scope of their employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“with the heads of the City Attorney's Office in retaliation for her objections to illegal contracts, was not a sufficiently”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.