Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 11 Beeler 96 - Carter v. Hodges

Carter v. Hodges’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
6
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Jackson v. Clark & Fay, Inc. (1954), Knox v. Batson (1966)

29 state decisions

1001939194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(5) The second question presented is whether deceased met his death by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Certainly, we think, he met his death in the course of his employment because his employment necessitated his going from Athens, Georgia, to Newnan, LeGrange and Carrelton, Georgia. His route lay through Atlanta. This was his regular route. Carter says, ‘He would always spend the night in Atlanta on that route.’ There was no deviation in his itinerary. It appears that he sold candy for the Schlesinger Candy Company, located in Atlanta, in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee; not in Georgia. The proof is that he did not contact the Schlesinger Candy Company on this trip. In going from Athens to Newnan and these other towns, via Atlanta, he was on his master’s business. We think deceased met Ms death in an accident growing out of his employment. Deceased was acting in course of the employment. The performance of duty made it necessary to him to travel, and, wMle going about the employer’s business, injury resulted. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp. v. Warren, supra, and the authorities cited therein. Deceased had to eat and sleep. He was away from home and, so, was under the necessity of putting up at a hotel or boarding house. In Tennessee Chem. Co. v. Smith, 145 Tenn. 532, 539 , 238 S.W. 97 , 99, the court quoted with approval the following from Whiting-Meade Commercial Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, 178 Cal. 505 , 1”
    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.