Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 972 FSUPP 308 - Davis v. Hoffman

Davis v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2018

1 district · 1 state decisions

20199720002010decided

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 Hishon v. King & Spalding · Niederman v. Brodsky · Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co. · Thompson v. Nason Hospital · Williams v. Guzzardi

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Nurse Puchini, the agent of Dr. Hoffman, cannot be liable for his alleged intentional tort, under some sort of doctrine of respondeat inferior. "); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.01 cmt. d ("[T]here is no principle of 'respondeat inferior.' "). However, as previously discussed, Martin has raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Finley and Albanese were acting within the scope of their authority as corporate directors when they purportedly engaged in tortious conduct against Martin. Thus, there is a dispute over whether it was really Med-Dev, the corporation, acting through Finley and Albanese as its agents, when actions were taken to close the Wells Fargo bank account, seek Martin's departure from the Board, and publish the Newsletter and Manifesto. Nevertheless, even if Finley and Albanese were acting within the scope of their authority when publishing the Newsletter and Manifesto, "[a] corporate officer is individually liable for the torts he personally commits and cannot shield himself behind a corporation when he is an actual participant in the tort.”
    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.