Barnett v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Hansen v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Southeastern School Corp. (2008), Hughes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County (2011)
3 federal appellate · 22 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 Stropes Ex Rel. Taylor v. Heritage House Childrens Center of Shelbyville, Inc. · Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc. · Konkle v. Henson · Carie v. PSI Energy, Inc. · Warner Trucking, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order for an employee's act to fall 'within the scope of employment,' the injurious act must be incidental to the conduct authorized or it must, to an appreciable extent, further the employer's business.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n employee's wrongful act may still fall within the scope of his employment if his purpose was, to an appreciable extent, to further his employer's business, even if the act was predominantly motivated by an intention to benefit the employee himself.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(aln employee's act is not within the seope of employment when it occurs within an independent course of conduct not intended by the employee to serve any purpose of the employer.”
3 later decisions 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.