Wuterich v. Murtha’s Empirical Analysis
562 F.3d 375 · 2009
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 30 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Saleh v. Titan Corp. (2009), Jacobs v. Vrobel (2013)
5 federal appellate · 30 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Behrens v. Pelletier · Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. · Will v. United States
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if: (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 unexpeetable by the master. (2) Conduct of a servant is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized by, far beyond the authorized space and time limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a United States district court shall be deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(1). Thus, when a federal employee is named in a tort suit, the Attorney General or his designee may certify that the employee was”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]n action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and [the] claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.”
3 later decisions 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.