Doe v. Swift

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “conduct of the employee . . . must not be impelled by motives that are wholly personal, or to gratify his own feelings or resentment, but should be in promotion of the business of his employment”
• holding psychologist’s sexual assault of his patient was outside the scope of his employment because it was “against all rules of his profession and [was] without any benefit to his employer”
• applying the contradictory affidavit rule when the plaintiff’s affidavit opposing summary judgment contradicted her own testimony in a previous federal civil trial arising out of the same facts
• describing the \furtherance of the employment\ language as an \aspect of the [line-and-scope] test\
• state not liable for a sexual assault by a psychologist of an involuntarily committed patient because assault was “against all rules of his profession and were without any benefit to his employer”
• “We have carefully reviewed the cases cited by the plaintiff as authority for the proposition that ‘sexual acts can be in the line and scope of one's employment.’ We are not persuaded by the holdings in these cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).