821 F. Supp. 2d 370 - Taylor v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer · United States v. Orleans · Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[cjonduct 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 unexpectable by the master.””
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.