Gaffney v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Restatement (Second) provides that an “act, although forbidden, or done in a forbidden manner, may be within the scope of employment”
• noting that the Restatement (Second) provides that an “act, although forbidden, or done in a forbidden manner, may be within the scope of employment”
• noting “that generally the question whether an act is within the scope of an employee’s employment is left to the jury .... ”
• “the fact that conduct occurred outside the time and space limits is not dispositive”
• “The omitted subsection deals with the intentional use of force by the servant, which is not relevant to this case.”
• “Indeed, rather than militating against a finding that an act was within the scope of employment, Martin held that an employer’s rule prohibiting certain actions ‘only reinforces the conclusion that [such] actions were expected and foreseeable.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).