Doe v. Fournier’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · City of Canton v. Harris · Kentucky v. Graham
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.
“that at all relevant times, Berry 'was acting within the scope of her employment as an employee of [a public employer]' " sufficient to find defendant immune from suit at pleadings stage (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the Court will not decide at this stage in the proceedings whether Defendant Cruz was acting within the scope of his employment and is therefore is entitled to immunity from suit in his individual capacity. Defendant Cruz next argues that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly state a negligence claim because the attacks by other inmates broke the chain of causation necessary for liability. (Docket No. 53, at 9-10). "The intervening criminal act of a third party is a superseding cause which breaks the chain of proximate causation only where the where the reasonable could not have foreseen such act .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Madison v. Cruz“whether the conduct was the kind that the employee was hired to perform, whether it occurred within the time and space authorized by the employment, and whether it was at least partly motivated by a desire to serve the employer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Madison v. Cruz“While [Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 185, § 1] may restrict other state courts' jurisdiction, '[a] grant of exclusive jurisdiction by a state legislature cannot divest a federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.'”
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.