Olson v. Oregon Coal & Navigation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
104 F. 574 · 1900
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1956
12 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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
Relies on Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross · New England Railroad v. Conroy · Quebec Co v. Merchant · The City of Alexandria · McCullough v. New York & N. Steamboat Co.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the recent case of Railroad Co. v. Conroy, 175 U. S. 323 , 20 Sup. Ct. 85 , 44 L. Ed. 181 , where the case of Railroad Co. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377 , 5 Sup. Ct. 184 , 28 L. Ed. 787 , was finally and squarely overruled, the Supreme Court announces the true rule to be, both upon principle and authority, ‘That the employer is not liable for an injury to one employs occasioned by the negligence of another engaged in the same general undertaking; that it is not necessary that the servants should be engaged in the same operation or particular work; that it is enough to bring the case within the general rule of exemption if they are in the employment of the same master, engaged in the same common enterprise, both employed to perform duties ^tending to accomplish the same general purposes, or, in other words, if the services of each in his particular sphere or department are directed to the accomplishment of the same general end.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The C. S. Holmes““It is undoubtedly true that the master represents the ownej.’ in respect to the personal duties and obligations which the latter owes to seamen, such, for instance, as the maintenance of the ship and her apparel in a safe and seaworthy condition, procuring repairs and supplies, the supplying of the crew with sufficient food and with medical attendance and care in case of injury and sickness, and for his neglect in any of those particulars the owner is liable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The C. S. Holmes““That it was no more than negligence in the ordinary navigation of the ship, in which common employment all of the members of the ship’s company werei engaged.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The C. S. Holmes
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.