46 Wis. 2d 423 - Kamp v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 1996
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
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
Relies on Claim of Dependents of Marks v. Gray · Robins Silk Manufacturing Co. v. Consolidated Piece Dye Works · 45 Wis. 2d 111 - Rabata v. Dohner · Barragar v. Industrial Commission · Village of Butler v. Industrial Commission
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The plaintiff takes the erroneous position that the mere fact Curtis’ travel was necessitated by Ford, Bacon & Davis’ assignment of him to the La Crosse area renders his travel an act within the scope of his employment. Relying on Barragar v. Industrial Comm. (1931), 205 Wis. 550 , 238 N. W. 368 , wherein this court quoted from Matter of Marks v. Gray (1929), 251 N. Y. 90 , 167 N. E. 181 , the plaintiff contends that once the trip is established to be that of the employer, it is unnecessary to establish the employer’s right to control the details of the trip. “This court has recognized in Strack v. Strack (1961), 12 Wis. 2d 537, 541 , 107 N. W. 2d 632 , that: “ ‘ “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 muster.” (Italics ours.) ’ “Even assuming the purpose of the trip was sufficiently that of the employer, the plaintiff is in error in that the right to control has long been the touchstone in determining whether one was acting within the scope of his employment. Barragar and Marks which was cited therein, unlike the instant case, involved a claim arising out of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This court, as early as Butler v. Industrial Comm. (1953), 265 Wis. 380, 383, 384 , 61 N. W. 2d 490 , recognized that the principles of the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior were different from those applicable to wo”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Conduct of a servant is not within the scope of employment if it is . . . too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The plaintiff takes the erroneous position that the mere fact Curtis' travel was necessitated by Ford, Bacon & Davis' assignment of him to the La Crosse area renders his travel an act within the scope of his employment. Relying on Barragar v. Industrial Comm. (1931), 205 Wis. 550 , 238 N. W. 368 , wherein this court quoted from Matter of Marks v. Gray (1929), 251 N. Y. 90 , 167 N. E. 181 , the plaintiff contends that once the trip is established to be that of the employer, it is unnecessary to establish the employer's right to control the details of the trip.”
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.