Lee v. Pfeifer’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2014
6 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co. · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Hechler
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“framed the essential issue as whether the conduct occurred for personal reasons or for the purpose of furthering the employer’s business. Thus, even if the incident occurred at work during normal business hours, a supervisor animated by personal concerns would not be acting within the scope of his employment.”
2 later decisions 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.