Comeau v. Rupp’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2011
1 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 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods Inc
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are ... not prepared to admit that accountants are immune from the consequences of their negligence because those who employ them have conducted their own business negligently. The situation in this respect is not unlike that of a workman injured by a dangerous condition which he has been employed to rectify. Accountants, as we know, are commonly employed for the very purpose of detecting defalcations which the employer’s negligence has made possible. Accordingly, we see no reason to hold that the accountant is not liable to his employer in such cases. Negligence of the employer is a defense only when it has contributed to the accountant’s failure to perform his contract and to report the truth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Comeau v. Rupp“1) where one personally without fault is made to pay for the tortious acts of another, such as in the case of the liability of a principal for the acts of the agent, or 2) where the negligence of the indemnitee can be characterized as ‘passive’ or ‘secondary,’ as contrasted to the ‘active’ or ‘primary’ negligence of the indemnitor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. TBG, INC. v. Bendis
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.