Smith v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 5 U.S.C. § 8101 (Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 8102 · 5 U.S.C. § 8116 · 5 U.S.C. § 8128
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Graham v. Connor · United States v. Sherwood · Ingraham v. Wright · City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital
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 1 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“Under New York law, an employee's act is within the scope of employment if 'the act was done while the servant was doing his master's work, no matter how irregularly, or with what disregard of instructions.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“need not have foreseen the precise act or the exact manner of the injury as long as the general type of conduct may have been reasonably expected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.