201 Wis. 2d 795 - Block v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Behrendt v. Gulf Underwriters Insurance (2009), Wisconsin Conference Board of Trustees of the United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Culver (2001)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
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 Richardson v. Marsh · Soria v. United States · 197 Wis. 2d 365 - Weiss v. United Fire & Casualty Co. · 137 Wis. 2d 397 - Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons · 166 Wis. 2d 442 - Waushara County v. Graf
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n employee may be found to have acted within the scope of his or her employment as long as the employee was at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer. There is no requirement that serving the employer must be the employee’s only purpose or even the employee’s primary purpose. Rather, an employee’s conduct is not within the scope of his or her employment if it is too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer or if it is motivated entirely by the employee’s own purposes (that is, the employee stepped aside from the prosecution of the employer’s business to accomplish an independent purpose of his or her own).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if: (a) it is of the kind he is employed to perform; (b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; (c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master, and (d) if force is intentionally used by the servant against another, the use of force is not unexpectable by the master. (2) Conduct of a servant is not -within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any person who suffers ... a physical, mental or emotional injury . . . resulting from . . . sexual contact with a therapist who is rendering or has rendered to that person ... counseling... has a civil cause of action against the psychotherapist for all damages . . . arising out of or caused by that sexual contact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.