113 Ind. App. 296 - Heffner v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

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

1. ““The hog house on which appellee was working at the time of his injury was to be used by said appellant in caring for his hogs, and was, therefore, reasonably necessary to the proper conduct and prosecution of John Heff-ner’s business. In view of the facts and the reasoning set forth in the foregoing authorities, we are of the opinion that the work of the appellee in remodeling the building here involved was employment in the usual course of the employer’s business. “Appellant argues that if appellee’s employment was in the usual course of his employer’s business, then it necessarily follows that appellee was a farm or agricultural employee, and is, therefore, precluded from recovery by Section 40-1209 Burns’ 1933, Section 16385, Baldwin’s 1934, which excludes farm and agricultural employees from the benefits of the act. With this contention we cannot agree. One engaged in the business of farming, either generally or in a limited way, is frequently required to- employ laborers who are not and cannot be classified as farm or agricultural employees. In the case of Makeever v. Marlin, 1931, 92 Ind.App. 158 , 174 N.E. 517 , the court approved the following language of the case of Peterson v. Farmers’ State Bank, 1930, 180 Minn. 40 , 230 N.W. 124 ; ‘* * * A farm laborer does not step out of his own part while doing carpenter work for his farmer employer in the repair of farm buildings. Neither does the carpenter who comes onto the farm for the job of carpentry and nothing more. On”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blew v. Conner

2. ““. . . Was appellant, at the time of his injury, a ‘farm or agricultural employee,' within the meaning of said provision? In determining this question we-must keep in mind the general character of the employment and the kind of work the employee was hired to do since our statute does not classify the employee in accordance with the general occupation or business of the employer. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hj Heinz Co., Etc. v. Chavez, Etc.

3. ““It must be admitted, however, that the relation of principal and agent is not always created by .express agreement, but may be, and frequently is, implied from the words and conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the particular case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 Ind. App. 170 - Silverstein v. Central Furniture Co., Inc.