105 Ind. App. 447 - Stewart v. Huff’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 1998
6 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
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 Jacob Weinman v. Richard De Palma · Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Hedges · Gregory v. Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railroad · Engel v. . Eureka Club · City of Logansport v. Dick
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T] here, are many exceptions to this rule. It does not apply in-the following cases: (1) Where the contract requires the performance of work intrinsically dangerous; (2) where a party is by law or contract charged with a specific duty; (3) where the act will create a nuisance; (4) where the act to be performed will probably cause injury to others unless due precaution is taken to avoid harm; and (5) where the act to be performed is illegal.” See also, Stewart v. Huff, supra (1938), 105 Ind. App. 447 , 14 N.E.2d 322 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The danger was not inherent in the work contracted to be done .... The governing principle is not doubtful. The only difficulty is in applying it to varying conditions. Here the decisive facts are simple. The defendant had no notice of the danger. He had not authorized any work which might reasonably be expected to create the danger. We think he is not liable for the act of a contractor’s servant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.