Armour v. Hahn’s Empirical Analysis
111 U.S. 313 · 1884
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 3 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1993 · most notably Kreigh v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. (1909), Bradley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. (1897)
76 federal appellate · 3 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Hough v. Railway Co. · Randall v. Baltimore O R · Spring Company v. Edgar · Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Cummings
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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘•Tliis court is of the opinion that the Circuit Court erred in not rendering judgment for the defendant on his demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence. There was no evidence tending to prove any negligence on the part of the firm of which the defendant was a member, or of their superintendent, or of the foreman of the gang of carpenters. The obligation of a master to provide ¡reasonably safe places and structures for his servants to work upon does not impose upon him the duty, as towards them, of keeping a building, which they are employed in erecting, in a safe condition at every moment of their work, so far as 'its safety depends upon the due performance of that work by them and their fellows.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If it was at the time insecure, it was either by reason of the risks ordinarily incident to the state of things in the unfinished condition of the building, or else by reason of some negligence of one of the carpenters or bricklayers, all of whom'were employed and paid by the same master, and were working in the course of their employment at the same place and time, with an immediate common object, the erection of the building, and therefore, within the strictest limits of the rule of law upon the subject, fellow servants, one of whom cannot maintain an action for injuries caused by the negligence of another against their common master.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The obligation of a master to provide reasonably safe places and structures for his servants to work upon does not oblige him to keep a building, which they aro employed in erecting, in a safe condition at every moment of their work, so far as its safety depends on the due performance of that work by them and their fellow servants.””
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.