Stokes v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis
327 F.3d 1210 · 2003
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 52 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Macharia v. United States (2003), Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham (2015)
13 federal appellate · 52 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp. · Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]pon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office of employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim ... shall be deemed an action brought against the United States ... and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“alleging facts that, if true, would establish that the defendants were acting outside the scope of their employment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.