Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 KAN 365 - Mercer v. Harvey

Mercer v. Harvey’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
3
states following
August 1991
most recently cited

2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1991

2 district · 5 state decisions

3019241930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Derby · Kemp v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. · Daniel v. Railroad · Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Boyce · Comer v. Knowles

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

  1. ““Where an arrest is caused by a subordinate agent or employee of a corporation there is no implication that he is authorized by the company to do so except when the arrest is made for the protection of the principal’s property in his immediate charge or in connection with proceedings for its recovery, or to prevent a crime at the time it is being committed. (Canon v. Sharon, etc., St. Ry. Co., 216 Pa. 408 ; Rossman v. American Exp. Co., 70 Pa. Supr. Ct. 525; Daniel v. Railroad, 136 N. C. 517 ; Pinkerton v. Gilbert, 22 Ill. App. 568 ; Bushardt v. United Inv. Co., 113 S. E. 637 [S. C.]; Sacks v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 192 S. W. 418 [Mo.].)” (p. 369.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"If the unlawful arrest is caused by a general agent, such as general manager, general superintendent, or one performing the duties of such an agent, or by a special agent whose general duty is to investigate and prosecute offenses committed against the company, specific authority to cause the arrest in question need not be shown. It will be inferred from the relationship as a matter of law if there is no controversy about the position of the agent. Under some circumstances the authority of the officers causing the arrest may be a proper question to submit to the jury."”
    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.