Nesmith v. Reich Bros.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"The undisputed facts of the case negative the idea that plaintiff, in legal contemplation, was independent as regards his contractual relations with and duties to his employer. He was working for a specified recompense but not for a specified result, and was under the control of his principal as to the means and methods by which the work was to be accomplished. He enjoyed no power of discretion as to when the work should be done since he was required to work twenty-four hours of each day. His discharge was a matter entirely within the volition of his principal and could have been done without recourse of any character by him against his employer. The fact that plaintiff could hire and discharge his helpers, fix their rate of pay, and use his own truck in the performance of his duties, does not alter the true relations of the parties. An employee may employ another to assist him in the performance of work assumed by him and at the same time be and remain an employee quoad another. "The case of Litton v. Natchitoches Oil Mill, Inc., La.App., 195 So. 638, 641 , is practically on all-fours with the present case. We said therein: `When the facts of the instant case are considered in the light of the above cited authorities, it appears that R. L. Litton occupied the status of an employee; and compensation was correctly awarded for his death. There was no employment for a specific length of time or for the hauling of a definite quantity of seed. He was permitted to haul only such q”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 So. 2d 304 - Himes v. Avinger

2. ““ ‘In determining, therefore, whether an accident ‘arose out of’ the employment, it is necessary to consider only this : (1) Was the employee then engaged about his employer’s business and not merely pursuing his own business or pleasure; and (2) did the necessities of that employer’s business reasonably require that the employee be at the. place of the accident at the time the accident occurred ?’ ” “In the present case Raggio certainly was not engaged about his employer’s business at the time of the accident. He had completed his day’s work and was going toward his home. In fact, he had travelled more than two-thirds of the distance between the place where he performed his last duty for defendant and his home. He, therefore, was pursuing his own business or pleasure at the time of the accident. Neither can it be said that the necessities of his employee’s (employer’s) business reasonably required that Raggio be at the place of the accident at the time the accident occurred. As far as the employer was concerned, Raggio was free to go wherever he liked after the drilling reports were delivered. He could have remained at Holly Beach or he could have driven in the opposite direction from Hackiberry as far as the necessities of defendant’s business was concerned. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the necessities of defendant’s business reasonably required that Raggio be approximately eleven or twelve miles north of Stanley’s Store at the time of the accident.” “In ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jinks v. Burton Sutton Oil Co.