Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 FSUPP 963 - Eikel v. Voris

Eikel v. Voris’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 1975
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1975

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

40195119601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 5 U.S.C. § 1001

Relies on Hoage v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. · Southern Stevedoring Co. v. Voris · Hoage v. Royal Indemnity Co. · Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Parker · Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Parker

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The plaintiffs likewise complain of the Deputy Commissioner’s action in receiving in evidence, over their objection, certain ex parte and unsworn written medical reports. The objections were to the effect that such reports constituted hearsay evidence and did not afford these plaintiffs the right of cross-examination. Aside from these reports, there was no evidence as to the nature or extent of the claimant’s injuries other than his own testimony which, of course, was general in character and did not purport to set out with professional accuracy and detail the condition from which the claimant was suffering. It is evident from his findings that the Commissioner not only received and considered these medical reports, but that he accepted them verbatim in making his findings of fact as to the nature of the claimant’s condition and the extent of his disability.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the plain terms of the statute may be disregarded under the guise of interpreting it liberally.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.