Jason Copeland v. County of MacOn Illinois, and Office of the Sheriff of MacOn County, Illinois

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although an employee was acting within the “authorized time and space limits” of his employment, his conduct in arranging the beating of a pre-trial detainee was not conduct that he was authorized to perform nor was he acting with the intent to serve his employer
• rejecting the notion that law enforcement officers have a general duty “to report, to help prevent, and to punish child abusers”
• asking whether the individual defendant’s conduct was “actuated by a purpose to serve his master, the County of Macon”
• rejecting similar argument because “[t]he idea that the Macon County Jail would have regulations in place authorizing corrections officers to recruit and assist inmates to attack a pre-trial detainee is ludicrous.”
• “Only those actions that an employee does to somehow further the purpose of the employer are within the scope of employment.”
• “To ascertain when an employee’s conduct is within the scope of employment, the Illinois Supreme Court has adopted § 228 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).