Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 CAL 593 - Callan v. Bull

Callan v. Bull’s Empirical Analysis

1896

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
11
states following
April 1969
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 1969 · most notably McDonald v. Shell Oil Co. (1955), 46 Cal. App. 707 - Barton v. Studebaker Corp. of America (1920)

2 federal appellate · 63 state decisions — followed in 11 states

20018961900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Johnson v. Boston Tow-Boat Co. · Kelly v. . the Mayor C. of New-York · Pack v. . the Mayor, C., of New York · Cuff v. Newark & New York Railroad · Burns v. Sennett & Miller

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

  1. ““The rule which requires the master to provide a safe place and safe appliances for the servant is applied when the place in which the work to he done is furnished or prepared by the master, as in the case of a-ship or a mill or a factory, or when the machinery or other appliances with which the servant is employed to work are furnished by the master; but it has no application when the place at which the work to be done or the appliances for doing the same are prepared by the servant himself.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where, however, the master does not undertake the duty of furnishing or adapting the appliances by which the work is to be performed, but this duty is intrusted to or assumed by the workmen themselves, within the scope of their employment, he is exempt from responsibility, if suitable materials are furnished and suitable workmen are employed by him, even if they negligently do that which they thus undertake.””
    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.