115 Ind. App. 426 - Pearson v. Rogers Galvanizing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 6 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The term “accident” as employed in the act has been defined by this court many times as meaning “an unlooked for mishap, an untoward event which is not expected or designed.” ’ American Maize Products Co. v. Nichiporchik (1940), 108 Ind.App. 502 , 29 N.E.2d 801 . In determining whether the elements of expectation or design must be absent from the standpoint of the injured person or from that of his employer, or both, we have as our sole guide in this jurisdiction the case of Furst Kerber Cut Stone Co. v. Mayo (1925), 82 Ind.App. 363 , 144 N.E. 857 , wherein it was enunciated: ‘The word “accident” in Section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is used in its popular sense, and means any mishap or untoward event not expected and which was not designed by the one who suffered the injury or death.’ (Italics ours)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cunningham v. Aluminum Co. of America, Inc.

2. ““The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee subject to this act on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representatives, dependents or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cunningham v. Aluminum Co. of America, Inc.