Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 F.1d 614 - Armour v. Russell

Armour v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis

144 F. 614 · 1906

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 1942
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1942

17 federal appellate ·

7019061910192019301940decided

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 Washington Co v. McDade · Vicksburg v. O'Brien · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Barrett · Peck v. Heurich · Boston Co v. O'Reilly

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

  1. ““Now, the master, the. employer of laborers, has a duty upon him to see that a reasonable place is given to the' laborer in which to work. He' is not an insurer of that place, but it is his duly to give him a reasonably safe place in which to work. It is his duty, also, to give him reasonably safe appliances with which to work. In this he is not an insurer. A reasonably safe appliance may break, but it is the duty of the employer, the master, to provide the servant, the employe, with reasonably safe appliances, and the place of work and the appliances must be reasonably safe when you take into consideration the nature of the work, the character of the occupation. II; is not sufficient for the plaintiff, the employe, who sues the master, to show that an accident happened. He must show that it happened through the neglect of the employer, through his failure to exercise reasonable care in furnishing a suitable place or a suitable appliance; that either a suitable place was not furnished; or that by reason of such want of reasonable care he, the employe, the servant, suffered.””
    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.