Farnham v. Labutis’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably Rawling v. City of New Haven (1988), McNamara v. Town of Hamden (1979)
26 state decisions
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 Glodenis v. American Brass Co. · Stakonis v. United Advertising Corporation · Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co. · Guiliano v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons · Merlino v. Connecticut Quarries Co.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An injury arises in the course of the employment when it takes place (a) within the period of the employment, (b) at a place where the employee may reasonably be, and (c) while he is reasonably fulfilling the duties of the employment or doing something incidental to it. An injury is said to arise out of the employment when it (a) occurs in the course of the employment and (b) is the result of a risk involved in the employment or incident to it or to the conditions under which it is required to be performed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`Arising out of and in the course of his employment' means an accidental injury happening to an employee or an occupational disease of such employee originating *Page 410 while he has been engaged in the line of his duty in the business or affairs of the employer upon the employer's premises, or while so engaged elsewhere upon the employer's business or affairs by the direction, express or implied, of the employer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rutledge v. State“If the injured party was engaged in doing an act which had no direct or incidental relation to his employment, the injury resulting from it is not compensable. Even though the activity of an employee is outside the obligation of his employment, an injury connected with the activity is compensable if the activity was permitted by the employer for the mutual benefit and convenience of both the employee and employer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rutledge v. State
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.