Vlotho v. Hardin County

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, where employee “exceeded his authority” and demolished bridge “under stealth,” a “court could find that [his] actions were not intended to advance the interests” of his employer
• recognizing some facts supported conclusion that employee acted within his scope of employment, while others supported the opposite conclusion
• finding fact question as to whether county engineer who was fired for unauthorized destruction of historic bridge was acting within scope of employment
• assessing conduct’s authorization, time, purpose, foreseeability, and departure from past practice
• issue of fact existed as to whether county engineer was acting within scope of employment when he had county bridge he thought dangerous destroyed, without obtaining board's approval as county policy required
• issue of fact existed as to whether county engineer was acting within scope of employment when he had county bridge he thought dangerous destroyed, without ob- taming board’s approval as county policy required

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).