Armit v. Loveland’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.2d 308 · 1940
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably Chuy 77-1412 v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club 77-1411 (1979), McNello v. John B. Kelly, Inc. (1960)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 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
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Panama Co v. Johnson · Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith · Jamison v. Encarnacion · Arizona v. Anelich · Chicago St Ry Co v. Coogan
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the defendants so scrambled their relations as to render it difficult for anyone to say for a certainty whether the plaintiff w&s employed by only one or by all of them that should not serve to defeat the plaintiff’s right by relieving a responsible defendant. To hold otherwise would be to put a premium upon the confusion which the defendants themselves created. The ones responsible for it should be the ones to dispel it, which they can do by adjusting their respective liabilities inter se. In the circumstances here present, we can see no legal necessity for requiring the plaintiff to grope around in search of his employer’s identity among corporate entities and individuals, all of whom are shoots off the same stock and engaged in a common, activity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Courts in general are reluctant to disturb a jury’s verdict on the ground of excessiveness where the damages are unliquidated and there is no fixed measure of mathematical certainty.””
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.