Noah v. Ziehl

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that the employer was not liable when the employee-bouncer attacked the patron after removing him from the saloon because, once outside, the conduct was no longer “in furtherance of his employer’s business”
• finding that employee exceeded the scope and course of his employment and, therefore, employer was entitled to a directed verdict
• discussing that if specific instructions are given by the employer, a “doorman,” “guard,” “bouncer,” or other such employee may well bind the employer vicariously when, in furtherance of the employer’s business he exceeds certain proprieties

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).