Counts v. USA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reciting the test: “(1) within the general authority given him; (2) in furtherance of the employer's business; and (3) for the accomplishment of the object for which the employee was employed.”
• “Under the Westfall Act, [viz., § 2679(d)] the Government may remove the judgment, which is no longer appealable or subject to motion for new trial.” Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. 1979

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bodin v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 2006-08-25· cited 63×
• Samtani v. City of Laredo
  S.D. Texas· 2017-08-16· cited 36×
• Oviedo v. Hallbauer
  Fifth Circuit· 2011-09-12· cited 35×
• M.D.C.G. v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 2020-04-21· cited 25×
• Price v. Johnson
  Fifth Circuit· 2010-03-16· cited 8×
• Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 through 20
  W.D. Texas· 2011-09-02· cited 7×
• Karlene Gilmore v. State of Mississippi
  Fifth Circuit· 2018-09-26· cited 3×
• Oviedo v. Hallbauer
  Fifth Circuit· 2011-10-14

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno
  Supreme Court· 1995-06-14· cited 571×
• Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman
  Texas Supreme Court· 2002-06-13· cited 216×
• Williams v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 1995-12-13· cited 67×
• Rodriguez v. Sarabyn
  Fifth Circuit· 1997-11-24· cited 39×
• Garcia v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 1995-08-25· cited 36×
• Mata v. Andrews Transport, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1995-04-13· cited 27×
• Andrews v. Houston Lighting & Power
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1991-12-12· cited 24×