Wolf v. Liberis

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the rule that officers are -13- 1-22-0553 “on-duty” at all times does not mean that all acts of an officer are within the scope of his employment
• holding that a municipality is liable for those acts of an off-duty policeman that fall within the scope of his employment, and specifically for those acts he performs to enforce the law and preserve the peace
• noting that an agent cannot confer power on himself and his agency or authority cannot be established by showing what he said or did
• recognizing the elements of claims for aiding and abetting and concert of action but failing to find liability where there were no allegations that the codefendant agreed to assist or substantially assisted in the commission of tort resulting in the plaintiff's injury
• recognizing the elements of claims for aiding and abetting and concert of action but failing to find liability where there were no allegations that the codefendant agreed to assist or substantially assisted in the commission of tort resulting in the plaintiff's injury
• “The rule defining police officers as being ‘on-duty’ at all times ... does not support a conclusion that all of the acts of a police officer are therefore within the scope of his employment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).