Munson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It should be clear that the primary-secondary characterization of the relationship between master-servant is a definition of their rights between themselves and has no bearing on their liability to the third party who has been injured. Thus, the master’s right to indemnity from his servant, by way of subrogation to plaintiffs claims, is the crucial factor in releasing the master when the servant is released. It is not, as the Government contends, based on some abstract dissolution of the underlying liability to the plaintiff which occurs when the servant releases him for less than full compensation and plaintiff reserves his rights against the master. That view would seem to be an erroneous application of the rule that where master and servant are joined by plaintiff in one suit, a verdict against the master will not be allowed when the servant is simultaneously exonerated. In that situation, the master’s sole liability depends upon a finding of liability on the part of the servant, so he cannot be held accountable where there is no such finding.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 113 Ohio App. 3d 282 - Wells v. Spirit Fabricating, Ltd.

2. ““This is so because the 1961 Amendments to the Federal Tort Claims Act now require a claimant to proceed directly against United States as his exclusive remedy. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b). Thus in future cases under the Act it seems unlikely that releases and/or covenants given by an employee -will play a part in settlements or litigation.” 380 F.2d at 978 . That prediction underscores the anomalous nature of this case — the employee’s private insurer voluntarily settled, though there was no possible way for its insured to be held personally liable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garrett v. Jeffcoat

3. “this situation would rarely arise under state law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kee v. United States