Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 680 FSUPP2D 672 - Mitchell v. Luckenbill

Mitchell v. Luckenbill’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Graham v. Connor · Payton v. New York

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under Pennsylvania law, an action falls within the scope of employment if it: (1) is the kind that the employee is employed to perform; (2) occurs substantially within the job’s authorized time and space limits; (3) is motivated at least in part by a desire to serve the employer; and (4) if force was used by the employee against another, the use of force is not unexpectable by the employer.”
    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.