Xue Lu v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.3d 944 · 2010
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Indian Towing Company v. United States · Williams v. United States · 54 Cal. 3d 202 - Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles · 24 Cal. 3d 579 - Cervantez v. J. C. Penney Co. · United States v. Olson
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors is an injury distinct from the battery,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lu v. U.S.“in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“immune from liability for an assault or battery by its employee,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lu v. U.S.
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.