Morman v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2002
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Kish v. California State Automobile Ass'n · Penticost v. Massey · Puhlman v. Excelsior Express & Standard Cab Co. · Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rue · Brinkman v. Zuckerman
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f the act is for the benefit of the employer, either directly or indirectly, the act is within the general scope of the servant's employment, but if the act performed is not in any way connected with the service for which he is employed, but for his own particular and peculiar purposes, then the act is not within the scope of the employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that a master cannot be held liable for his servant's acts or negligence beyond the scope of his employment, even though the injury could not have been committed without the facilities afforded to the servant by the master.”
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.