34 Wash. 2d 611 - Smith v. Leber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In short, when it is asserted that the employee acted without the knowledge of the employer and without his approval, or in violation of his orders and instructions, the question of liability, as in other cases, is determined by whether the employee was in fact acting within the scope of his implied or apparent authority. If he was not, the employer is not to be held liable, although a prohibition by the employer may be a factor in determining, in a doubtful case, whether the act of the employee was incidental to the employment so as to be within the scope thereof."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rahman v. State · Rahman v. State

2. “whether the employee was, at the time, engaged in the performance of the duties required of him by his contract of employment; or by specific direction of his employer; or, as sometimes stated, whether he was engaged at the time in the furtherance of the employer’s interest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Simmons v. United States · 73 Wash. App. 492 - Bratton v. Calkins

3. “`an employer is liable for acts of his employee within the scope of the latter's employment notwithstanding such acts are done in violation of rules, orders, or instructions of the employer.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rahman v. State · Rahman v. State