Rasul v. Myers’s Empirical Analysis
512 F.3d 644 · 2008
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Wilson v. Libby (2008), Aamer v. Obama (2014)
16 federal appellate · 16 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 10 U.S.C. § 774 · 10 U.S.C. § 801 (Military Justice Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991) · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Baker v. Carr
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he plaintiffs concede that the torture, threats, physical and psychological abuse inflicted on them, which were allegedly approved, implemented, supervised and condoned by the defendants, were intended as interrogation techniques to be used on detainees.... While the plaintiffs challenge the methods the defendants used to perform their duties, the plaintiffs do not allege that the defendants acted as rogue officials or employees who implemented a policy of torture for reasons unrelated to the gathering of intelligence. Therefore, the alleged tortious conduct was incidental to the defendants’ legitimate employment duties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“According to the D.C. Court of Appeals, conduct is “incidental” to an employee’s legitimate duties if it is “foreseeable.” “Foreseeable” in this context does not carry the same meaning as it does in negligence cases; rather, it requires the court to determine whether it is fair to charge employers with responsibility for the intentional torts of their employees. To be foreseeable, the torts must be a direct outgrowth of the employee’s instructions or job assignment.”
1 later decision 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.