Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 Okla. 167 - Mobley v. Brown

Mobley v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
6
states following
November 1993
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 1993 · most notably Hayes v. . Elon College (1944), Veazey Drug Co. v. Bruza (1934)

31 state decisions

1201931194019501960197019801990decided

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 Harris v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. · Mashburn v. City of Grandfield · Dillon v. Dillman · City of Ponca City v. Grimes · Union Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma, N. M. & P. Ry. 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The burden of proof showing jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission is upon the claimant, and in order to sustain such burden it is incumbent upon the claimant to establish that the employment in which he is engaged is one of those provided for in the act. When such employment is established, then under the provisions of section 7295 C.O.S.1921, it may be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that the employer is carrying on a business that comes within the provisions of the act. But such a presumption is not indulged, and cannot be indulged, until the jurisdictional fact is established that the employment out of which the injury grew was one of those classes to which the act applies.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The fact that power-driven machinery was used (i. e., the motorcycle being driven by power) does not constitute the drug store a workshop so as to bring it within the provision of the act, nor does the use of electric refrigeration, an ordinary ‘Frigidaire.’ Although deliverv of prescriptions by motorcycle may in fact be hazardous, such employment does not come within the terms of the act until made to do ro by statute.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The Legislature having failed to include the employment in a drug store, or the employment of one as a deliveryman, within the classes of employment to which the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies, it follows that Herman (Brown’s cause was not governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the commission was in error in failing to sustain the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.