Prado v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the Attorney General refuses to provide for the defense of a State employee as required by [N.J.S.A 59:10A-1 and -2] the employee or former employee of the State shall be entitled to indemnification from the State if he establishes that the act or omission upon which the claim or judgment was based occurred within the scope of his employment as an employee of the State and the Slate fails to establish that he acted or failed to act because of actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct. If the State employee establishes that he was entitled to a defense under the provisions of this chapter, the State shall pay or reimburse him for any bona fide settlement agreements entered into by the employee, and shall pay or reimburse him for any judgments entered against the employee, and shall pay or reimburse him for all costs of defending the action, including reasonable counsel fees and expenses, together with costs of appeal, if any.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prado v. State · Prado v. State

2. “At a staff meeting on June 7, 2001, defendant Harry Pappas, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of the Department of Labor, addressed Department of Labor employees for several hours concerning changes intended both "to improve enforcement of prevailing wage regulations and to achieve higher performance standards by the field staff.” Afterwards, a number of those present complained that Pappas made “offensive and/or inappropriate comments,” particularly in describing Hispanic workers and women. As a result of those complaints, the Labor Department’s Affirmative Action Officer, Gail Ericson, conducted an investigation, interviewing Pappas and nineteen of the twenty-six persons who attended the meeting. All those interviewed stated that Pappas “referred to non-English-speaking workers at inspection sites as “wetbacks.’ ” Several remembered Pappas describing the “Spanish language as ‘jibber-jabber’ or some similar phrase.” Seven staff members stated that Pappas “used derogatory terms in reference to women, variously reported as ‘bitch,’ ‘skirt,’ or ‘dolly.’ ” It was also reported that he told a female administrator to “ ‘go sit at [her] desk and count paper clips.’ ” Various staff members described Pappas’ general behavior during the meeting as “aggressive, demeaning, arrogant, and insensitive.” Additionally, they claimed that Pap-pas boasted that he had a “close relationship with the Commissioner and Governor” and “that anything he said or did” had their “full backing.” During”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prado v. State

3. “An act “is generally considered to be within the scope of employment if, ‘it is of the kind [that the servant] is employed to perform; it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; [and] it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master.’ ” Di Cosala v. Kay, 91 N.J. 159, 169 , 450 A.2d 508 (1982) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228 (1957)); see also Carter v. Reynolds, 175 N.J. 402, 411-12 , 815 A.2d 460 (2003). Under this standard, Pappas’ comments at the June 7, 2001 meeting were clearly made within the scope of his employment even though he used ethnically and sexually offensive terms during the course of his presentation to the staff. The Commissioner or one of his deputies evidently sent Pappas to the staff meeting to describe changes in the procedures to be followed by the Office of Wage and Horn' Compliance. Thus, even though Pappas used inappropriate language in performing this duty, his presentation to the staff was the kind of work he was employed to perform; it occurred within normal work hours in the Department of Labor building; and his evident purpose was to serve the interests of the Department. Therefore, there was no basis for the Attorney General’s conclusion that Pappas’ comments were made outside the scope of his employment. ‘Willful misconduct” has been defined as “the commission of a forbidden act with actual (not imputed) knowledge that the act is forbidden.” Fielder v. Stonack, 141 N.J. 101, 124 , 661 A”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prado v. State