Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Kanessgreen2 sentences2006Romero v. Schulze, 974 P.2d 959, 964 (Wyo.1999); Austin v. Kaness, 950 P.2d 561, 563 (Wyo.1997). 2006Romero v. Schulze, 974 P.2d 959, 964 (Wyo. 1999); Austin v. Kaness, 950 P.2d 561, 563 (Wyo. 1997). | 2 | 2 |
Dade County v. Lambertgreen1 sentence2020Co. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (“It is an established principle of law that admissions implied from the default of one defendant ordinarily are not binding upon a codefendant who, by answering, expressly denies and places in issue the truth of the allegations thus admitted by the absent party.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 7 Morehouse v. Wanzo, 72 Cal.Rptr. 607, 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (“The general contractor, as an employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, may take advantage of any favorable aspects of the judgment against the e | 1 | 1 |
United Salt Corp. v. McKeegreen1 sentence2020Ct. App. 1976) (finding that county could not be held vicariously liable based on its employee’s failure to plead, and stating “[t]he default of one defendant, although an admission by him of the allegations of the complaint, does not operate as an admission of such allegation as against a contesting co-defendant”); United Salt Corp. v. McKee, 628 P.2d 310, 313 (N.M. 1981) (holding that an employer is not foreclosed from litigating issues of negligence, respondeat superior, and damages based on an employee’s default); Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp., 763 N.Y.S.2d 840, 842 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Western Heritage Insurance v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2020Co. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (“It is an established principle of law that admissions implied from the default of one defendant ordinarily are not binding upon a codefendant who, by answering, expressly denies and places in issue the truth of the allegations thus admitted by the absent party.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 7 Morehouse v. Wanzo, 72 Cal.Rptr. 607, 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (“The general contractor, as an employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, may take advantage of any favorable aspects of the judgment against the e | 1 | 1 |
Morehouse v. Wanzogreen1 sentence2020Co. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (“It is an established principle of law that admissions implied from the default of one defendant ordinarily are not binding upon a codefendant who, by answering, expressly denies and places in issue the truth of the allegations thus admitted by the absent party.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 7 Morehouse v. Wanzo, 72 Cal.Rptr. 607, 611 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (“The general contractor, as an employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, may take advantage of any favorable aspects of the judgment against the e | 1 | 1 |
Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp.green1 sentence2020Ct. App. 1976) (finding that county could not be held vicariously liable based on its employee’s failure to plead, and stating “[t]he default of one defendant, although an admission by him of the allegations of the complaint, does not operate as an admission of such allegation as against a contesting co-defendant”); United Salt Corp. v. McKee, 628 P.2d 310, 313 (N.M. 1981) (holding that an employer is not foreclosed from litigating issues of negligence, respondeat superior, and damages based on an employee’s default); Balanta v. Stanlaine Taxi Corp., 763 N.Y.S.2d 840, 842 (N.Y. | 1 | 1 |
Eklund v. PRI Environmental, Inc.green2 sentences2006We will consider these three factors together, which at their essence are simply an examination of the policy reasons for and against adoption of a duty. [¶28] The law generally recognizes only two situations in which an employer is held liable for the negligent acts of his employees: when the employee is acting within the scope of his employment pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, Eklund v. PRI Environmental, Inc., 2001 WY 55, ¶12 , 25 P.3d 511, 515 (Wyo. 2001), and when the employee is acting outside the scope of his employment but is on the employer's premises or is using the c 2006We will consider these three factors together, which at their essence are simply an examination of the policy reasons for and against adoption of a duty. [¶28] The law generally recognizes only two situations in which an employer is held liable for the negligent acts of his employees: when the employee is acting within the scope of his employment pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, Eklund v. PRI Environmental, Inc., 2001 WY 55, ¶12 , 25 P.3d 511, 515 (Wyo. 2001), and when the employee is acting outside the scope of his employment but is on the employer's premises or is using the c | 1 | 1 |
Romero v. Schulzegreen2 sentences2006Romero v. Schulze, 974 P.2d 959, 964 (Wyo.1999); Austin v. Kaness, 950 P.2d 561, 563 (Wyo.1997). 2006Romero v. Schulze, 974 P.2d 959, 964 (Wyo. 1999); Austin v. Kaness, 950 P.2d 561, 563 (Wyo. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Hardy v. Brantleygreen2 sentences1999This Court has recognized that, if a physician is the employee of a hospital, the hospital may be held liable for the injuries negligently inflicted by the physician under the doctrine of respondeat superior: "Where a hospital holds itself out to the public as providing a given service, ... and where the hospital enters into a contractual arrangement with one or more physicians to direct and provide the service, and where the patient engages the services of the hospital without regard to the identity of a particular physician and where as a matter of fact the patient is relying upon the hospit 1999This Court has recognized that, if a physician is the employee of a hospital, the hospital may be held liable for the injuries negligently inflicted by the physician under the doctrine of respondeat superior: “Where a hospital holds itself out to the public as providing a given service, ... and where the hospital enters into a contractual arrangement with one or more physicians to direct and provide the service, and where the patient engages the services of the hospital without regard to the identity of a particular physician and where as a matter of fact the patient is relying upon the hospit | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences1996Abalos v. Bernalillo County D.A.’s Office, 105 N.M. 554 , 734 P.2d 794 , 799 (Ct.App.1987), cert. quashed, 106 N.M. 35 , 738 P.2d 907 (1987) (citing Gonzales v. State, 29 Cal.App.3d 585 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 804, 808 (1972)). 1996Abalos v. Bernalillo County D.A.’s Office, 105 N.M. 554 , 734 P.2d 794 , 799 (Ct.App.1987), cert. quashed, 106 N.M. 35 , 738 P.2d 907 (1987) (citing Gonzales v. State, 29 Cal.App.3d 585 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 804, 808 (1972)). | 1 | 1 |
Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp.green1 sentence1980In Huntsinger v. Fell, 22 Cal. App.2d 803 , 99 Cal. Rptr. 666, 668-669 (1972), it is said: "Thus, while it may constitute pouring new wine into an old bottle, the `going and coming' rule and its exceptions in the tort cases are concerned with the allocation of the economic cost of an injury resulting from a risk incident to business enterprise, and the social philosophy underlying the rule and its exceptions in the tort field is now substantially similar to that underlying workmen's compensation." After discussion of the Hinman and other decisions, the court concludes: "* * * The indication is | 1 | 1 |
Brittell v. Younggreen2 sentences1980In Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 2 Cal.3d 956 , 88 Cal. Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988, 991, n. 3 (1971) we find this statement: "Although the test under the workmen's compensation law of `arising out of and in the course of the employment' (Lab.Code, § 3600), is not identical with the test of `scope of employment' under the respondeat superior doctrine * * * both fields of law are concerned with the allocation of the cost of industrial injury; and the two tests are closely related (see 2 Harper and James, supra, pp. 1377-1378)." As stated in Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co., 50 Cal. Ap 1980In Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 2 Cal.3d 956 , 88 Cal. Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988, 991, n. 3 (1971) we find this statement: "Although the test under the workmen's compensation law of `arising out of and in the course of the employment' (Lab.Code, § 3600), is not identical with the test of `scope of employment' under the respondeat superior doctrine * * * both fields of law are concerned with the allocation of the cost of industrial injury; and the two tests are closely related (see 2 Harper and James, supra, pp. 1377-1378)." As stated in Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co., 50 Cal. Ap | 1 | 1 |
Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.green2 sentences1980In Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 2 Cal.3d 956 , 88 Cal. Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988, 991, n. 3 (1971) we find this statement: "Although the test under the workmen's compensation law of `arising out of and in the course of the employment' (Lab.Code, § 3600), is not identical with the test of `scope of employment' under the respondeat superior doctrine * * * both fields of law are concerned with the allocation of the cost of industrial injury; and the two tests are closely related (see 2 Harper and James, supra, pp. 1377-1378)." As stated in Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co., 50 Cal. Ap 1980In Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 2 Cal.3d 956 , 88 Cal. Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988, 991, n. 3 (1971) we find this statement: "Although the test under the workmen's compensation law of `arising out of and in the course of the employment' (Lab.Code, § 3600), is not identical with the test of `scope of employment' under the respondeat superior doctrine * * * both fields of law are concerned with the allocation of the cost of industrial injury; and the two tests are closely related (see 2 Harper and James, supra, pp. 1377-1378)." As stated in Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co., 50 Cal. Ap | 1 | 1 |
Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co.green2 sentences1980In Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 2 Cal.3d 956 , 88 Cal. Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988, 991, n. 3 (1971) we find this statement: "Although the test under the workmen's compensation law of `arising out of and in the course of the employment' (Lab.Code, § 3600), is not identical with the test of `scope of employment' under the respondeat superior doctrine * * * both fields of law are concerned with the allocation of the cost of industrial injury; and the two tests are closely related (see 2 Harper and James, supra, pp. 1377-1378)." As stated in Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co., 50 Cal. Ap 1980In Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 2 Cal.3d 956 , 88 Cal. Rptr. 188 , 471 P.2d 988, 991, n. 3 (1971) we find this statement: "Although the test under the workmen's compensation law of `arising out of and in the course of the employment' (Lab.Code, § 3600), is not identical with the test of `scope of employment' under the respondeat superior doctrine * * * both fields of law are concerned with the allocation of the cost of industrial injury; and the two tests are closely related (see 2 Harper and James, supra, pp. 1377-1378)." As stated in Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co., 50 Cal. Ap | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sharsmith v. Hill
green
2 sentences1999This Court has recognized that, if a physician is the employee of a hospital, the hospital may be held liable for the injuries negligently inflicted by the physician under the doctrine of respondeat superior: "Where a hospital holds itself out to the public as providing a given service, ... and where the hospital enters into a contractual arrangement with one or more physicians to direct and provide the service, and where the patient engages the services of the hospital without regard to the identity of a particular physician and where as a matter of fact the patient is relying upon the hospit 1999This Court has recognized that, if a physician is the employee of a hospital, the hospital may be held liable for the injuries negligently inflicted by the physician under the doctrine of respondeat superior: “Where a hospital holds itself out to the public as providing a given service, ... and where the hospital enters into a contractual arrangement with one or more physicians to direct and provide the service, and where the patient engages the services of the hospital without regard to the identity of a particular physician and where as a matter of fact the patient is relying upon the hospit | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Abalos v. Bernalillo County District Attorney's Office
green
1 sentence1996Abalos v. Bernalillo County D.A.’s Office, 105 N.M. 554 , 734 P.2d 794 , 799 (Ct.App.1987), cert. quashed, 106 N.M. 35 , 738 P.2d 907 (1987) (citing Gonzales v. State, 29 Cal.App.3d 585 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 804, 808 (1972)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Abalos v. Bernalillo County DA's Office
green
1 sentence1996Abalos v. Bernalillo County D.A.’s Office, 105 N.M. 554 , 734 P.2d 794 , 799 (Ct.App.1987), cert. quashed, 106 N.M. 35 , 738 P.2d 907 (1987) (citing Gonzales v. State, 29 Cal.App.3d 585 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 804, 808 (1972)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Noonan v. Texaco, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986The details of safety being in control of the contractor rather than Texaco, it is apparent to us that Texaco's minimal, and we feel necessary, involvement in safety did not result in the contractor becoming Texaco's employee so that Texaco became liable to appellant under the doctrine of respondeat superior." Id., at 167 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Stockwell v. Morris
green
2 sentences1986In May of 1933 this court published Stockwell v. Morris, 46 Wyo. 1 , 22 P.2d 189 , in which the issue was whether a Maytag washing machine salesman was, when he had an accident on the highway injuring another, a servant of Maytag under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 1986In May of 1933 this court published Stockwell v. Morris, 46 Wyo. 1 , 22 P.2d 189 , in which the issue was whether a Maytag washing machine salesman was, when he had an accident on the highway injuring another, a servant of Maytag under the doctrine of respondeat superior. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Mercury Motors Exp., Inc. v. Smith
green
2 sentences1981It is sufficient that the plaintiff allege and prove some fault on the part of the employer which foreseeably contributed to the plaintiff’s injury to make him vicariously liable for punitive damages.” (Emphasis in original.) 393 So.2d at 549 . 1981It is sufficient that the plaintiff allege and prove some fault on the part of the employer which foreseeably contributed to the plaintiff's injury to make him vicariously liable for punitive damages." (Emphasis in original.) 393 So.2d at 549 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Oroz v. Board of County Com'rs of Carbon County
green
2 sentences1980In the realm of state torts, respondeat superior is not the exception to immunity but, rather, is inherently rejected by it. 10 Even so, in certain instances, such as some of those hereinafter discussed or where immunity has been abrogated (as in Wyoming with governmental entities other than the State itself, Oroz, supra), the public employee may be liable for wrongdoing. 1980In the realm of state torts, respondeat superior is not the exception to immunity but, rather, is inherently rejected by it. [10] Even so, in certain instances, such as some of those hereinafter discussed or where immunity has been abrogated (as in Wyoming with governmental entities other than the State itself, Oroz, supra), the public employee may be liable for wrongdoing. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.