-
821 F.2d 871·
1st Cir.·
1987-06-16
·cited 41×
The court held that proximate causation for the individual defendants' actions was a jury question, and that the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
-
468 F.2d 1270·
9th Cir.·
1972-08-07
·cited 10×
-
338 F.2d 589·
9th Cir.·
1964-11-25
·cited 10×
The court held that a military member on leave, traveling in a private vehicle for personal reasons, is not acting within the scope of employment under the Federal Tort Claims Act, even if the travel is related to a duty exchange.
-
786 F.2d 964·
9th Cir.·
1986-04-10
·cited 7×
The United States is not liable under the FTCA for the negligence of a military member when the member is on leave and traveling for personal reasons, even if the military retains some general control over the member's activities.
-
957 F.2d 482·
7th Cir.·
1992-03-13
·cited 6×
The court held that the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, as his deviation to a bar for several hours broke the chain of employment.
-
527 F.2d 459·
9th Cir.·
1975-12-04
·cited 6×
The court held that the government failed to establish as a matter of law that the pilot was not acting within the scope of his employment or that Major Schmitz lacked apparent authority to authorize the flight.
-
984 F.2d 1350·
3d Cir.·
1993-01-22
·cited 4×
The district court's order resubstituting individual defendants and remanding the case is appealable and reviewable by mandamus, and the district court erred in applying incorrect legal standards to determine scope of employment.
-
886 So. 2d 281·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2004-11-10
·cited 2×
Ronald Powers appeals a workers' compensation judge's summary final order barring his claims based on the doctrine of election of remedies, after he obtained a civil judgment against his co-worker and employer for battery. The court affirmed, holding that because Powers alleged t
-
956 F.2d 524·
5th Cir.·
1992-03-31
·cited 2×
A law firm is not vicariously liable for a partner's tortious conduct when the partner acts solely for personal gain and not within the scope of employment, and there is no pre-existing relationship between the firm and the injured third party that enabled the tort.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2021-04-07
The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims of respondeat superior and related torts (assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress), finding the employee was not acting within the scope of employment. However, the court denied summary judgment
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2019-11-14
The court granted the School Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims against them, finding Theresa's Title IX claim untimely and that the School Defendants could not be held vicariously liable for Dutton's intentional torts or have reasonably foreseen his sexual assault. The cou
-
219 F. Supp. 2d 1275·
S.D. Fla.·
2002-08-01
The court held that the computer program developed by an employee during his research assignment was a 'work made for hire', vesting copyright ownership with the employer.
-
982 F.2d 1147·
7th Cir.·
1992-12-29
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by her failure to comply with the Indiana Tort Claims Act's notice provision, and that the pilot was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the crash.
-
970 F.2d 1081·
2d Cir.·
1992-07-23
The court held that the district court erred by not submitting the issue of scope of employment to the jury for both the conversion and assault claims, and that the jury instructions regarding plaintiff Gray's absence and damages were also flawed.