Ward v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “the remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and 2672 of this title for ... personal injury ... resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of the same subject matter ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aldridge v. Hartford Hospital · Sullivan v. United States

2. “[a] person may be the servant of two masters, not joint employers, at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve abandonment of the service to the other.” Restatement, § 226. Davila, therefore, could be simultaneously the servant of both the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5293 - Alswanger v. Smego, No. Xo5-Cv-92-0125294-S (Apr. 21, 1999) · 199 F. Supp. 2d 269 - Anderson v. Government of the Virgin Islands

3. “... Smith’s discussion of the interaction between Westfall Act immunity and “exceptions” to liability under the FTCA guides this court in its treatment of the possible, application of “borrowed servant” doctrine in this case. The “borrowed servant” doctrine is not an express “exception” to the FTCA that would prevent the plaintiffs from seeking a remedy against the United States. Instead, because the FTCA allows a plaintiff to recover against the United States only “to the same extent as a private individual in like circumstances,” the “borrowed servant” doctrine could conceivably be a limitation on the United State’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Because FTCA actions brought pursuant to the Westfall Act are “subject to the limitations and exceptions [of the FTCA],” a federal employee acting within the course and scope of his federal employment may therefore still retain Westfall Act immunity, even when a different state tort liability provision will ultimately prevent the plaintiff from recovering against the United States. ***** Thus we must now determine whether under Texas state law, the scope of employment inquiry is separable from the control inquiry and the ultimate issue of liability. Under the reasoning of Smith , if the two issues are separable, the “borrowed servant” doctrine will not prevent Dr. Graham from being within the “course and scope of his employment.” If this is the case, Dr. Graham is entitled to West-fall Act immunity, and the United States is the appr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aldridge v. Hartford Hospital