Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 Ind. App. 75 - Reed v. Brown

129 Ind. App. 75 - Reed v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
4
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Bass v. Mecklenburg County (1962), Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson (1977)

40 state decisions

1601958196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cudahy Packing Co of Nebraska v. Parramore · Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles · Murphy v. Miettinen · 83 Ind. App. 159 - Jeffries v. Pitman-Moore Co. · Gavin v. 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Being rightfully upon appellants' private driveway which crossed the tracks of the railroad situated upon appellants' land, at the time and place and under the circumstances and conditions here exhibited, it seems clear that decedent was subjected to the risk of a hazard which was incidental to his employment. Nothing is said in the stipulation indicating that appellants' driveway was used by the general public nor that it was not so used. Inasmuch as the driveway is designated in the stipulation as the "private" driveway of appellants, it seems fair to infer therefrom that the driveway was devoted to the business and personal purposes of the appellants and therefore was not generally used by the traveling public. Thus considered, it seems to follow that the hazard and danger of accident encountered by decedent was not one common to all but was one incidental to his employment. We think the Board correctly concluded that the fatal accident which befell decedent arose out of and in the course of his employment."”
    12 later decisions 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.