203 F. Supp. 2d 302 - Marley v. Ibelli’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 41 (National Museum Act of 1966) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Paul v. Davis · Liteky et al United States · Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.
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.
“[1] the connection between the time, place and occasion for the act; [2] the history of the relationship between employer and employee as spelled out in actual practice; [3] whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee; [4] the extent of departure from normal methods of performance; [5] and whether the specific act was one that the employer could reasonably have anticipated.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Brown“come into physical contact with one another from time to time whether through clumsiness, negligence, or intent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Brown
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.