146 Ind. App. 70 - Block v. Fruehauf’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is a matter of common knowledge to employers of labor that men working together or in near proximity to other workers, will indulge in moments of diversion from work to play pranks on each other; and where the duties of the employment require that an employe perform his work in a factory or mill with or near other workers, whether such workers are co-employes, or not, the risk from accident is thereby, to some extent at least, necessarily increased, and this increased risk is a risk of the employment. [Citations omitted].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Ind. App. 285 - Pepka Spring Co. v. Jones · Weldy v. Kline

2. ““Even in those cases in which the ‘undisputed evidence’ seems to us to establish essential facts which the Board has failed to find, we are not at liberty to assume such facts in deciding whether the award is contrary to law. Such was the holding in Cole v. Sheehan Constr. Co. (1944), 222 Ind. 274, 280 , 58 N. E. 2d 172 , wherein the Supreme Court said: “ ‘The Appellate Court found that the undisputed evidence produced by the appellant established that she and the decedent were husband and wife and they were living apart at the time of his death for their own convenience. The court concluded that, as a consequence, the appellant was entitled to compensation. Cole v. Sheehan Construction Co. (1943), 51 N. E. 2d 391 . It is immaterial which party produced the evidence and it does not necessarily follow that there was no conflict in the evidence merely because the testimony was undisputed. A conflict may arise out of the testimony of a single witness, though it is not disputed by any other testimony. McKee v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1943), ante p. 10, 51 N. E. 2d 474 . Since the full board made no finding as to some of the material issues the problem presented is not that of determining whether there is some evidence tending to support an award. We think, therefore, that it was an invasion of the province of the full board for the Appellate Court to undertake to find the ultimate facts in the first instance. The statute does not contemplate that the functions of the Industrial Boa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 Ind. App. 685 - Miller v. BARRETT

3. ““It is also true that where the employer has acquiesced in the particular conduct, or ‘horseplay,’ that the employee may be compensated. Kokomo, etc., Wire Co. v. Irick, 80 Ind. App. 610 , 141 N. E. 796 (1923); Kunkel v. Arnold, 131 Ind. App. 219, 234 , 158 N. E. 2d 660 (1959). (Transfer denied). As a corollary to this approach, our courts have held that where ‘horseplay’ may be expected to occur because of the type of activity the employee is engaged in, i.e., air hose ‘gooses,’ then the employee may be compensated. However, this Court has never gone so far as to say that where the ‘horseplay’ was not acquiesced in by the employer, not a natural condition of the employment, and where, in fact, the employee participated in the ‘horseplay,’ and was not, therefore, an innocent victim, that the employee should be compensated. To the contrary, we have consistently denied compensation in such cases for the reason that such activity does not arise out of the employment.” 19 Ind. Dec. at 493,494.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 151 Ind. App. 190 - Lincoln v. Whirlpool Corporation