Stacy v. Greenberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * In our earlier decision, after examining pertinent New York authorities pursuant to a stipulation of counsel that `all decisions of the New York courts which may be cited by counsel shall be deemed to be in evidence for the purpose of the determination by the court as to the State of New York law,' we concluded that, though Greenberg [defendant] and plaintiffs [Stacy and Wolff] might be entitled to compensation benefits under the New York act for their hurts, Stacy and Wolff were barred by the statute from maintaining common law actions against Greenberg only if Greenberg's act of driving was in the authorized performance of a job for his employer. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 N.J. Super. 376 - Konitch v. Hartung

2. “intended to bar common law actions against the employee whose wrong injures his fellow employee if the driving is part of his job in the employer's service * * *,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 N.J. Super. 376 - Konitch v. Hartung

3. “if the purposes of the driving include the performance of an assigned duty of the employment the immunity follows.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 N.J. Super. 376 - Konitch v. Hartung