Mitchell v. Mitchell Drilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . We think the evidence reasonably tends to show he was acting within the scope of his employment. The mere fact he chose to travel paved highways and on that route possibly pick up a greatly needed change of clothing at his home in Great Bend, although the chosen route necessitated driving somewhat farther, did not alone constitute an abandonment of his employment. (Woods v. Jacob Dold Packing Co., 141 Kan. 363 , 41 P. 2d 748 .)” (1. c. 123.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Taylor v. Centex Construction Co. · 131 So. 2d 558 - Alexander v. Insurance Company of the State of Pa.

2. ““There was direct evidence the workman intended to go to the Zenith well. It was logical and proper that, as superintendent of drilling activities, he should be there. The evidence disclosed diere were several reasons, involving the interests of the drilling company, which it was reasonable to infer prompted his decision to go by way of Great Bend. He had authority to determine his course of travel and the business he desired to transact for his employer. He was using the company’s car. It had machinery on it which is employed in drilling operations. At the time of his unfortunate accident he had progressed sufficiently far to bring him to die Zenith well in tíme for the commencement of that well. In view of all the circumstances we diink it was reasonable to infer the Zenith well was his destination and that he was killed in the course of his employment. “The accident also arose out of his employment. A necessary part of his employment consisted in traveling from well to well and to any other place at which he might desire to transact business pertaining to drilling activities. Manifestly, part of his business consisted of traveling the highways. The hazards and risks of highway travel were incidents of his employment. It was in connection with those hazards of employment that his death occurred and it cannot be said the accident did not arise out of his employment.” 154 Kan. at 121-22 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Hughes

3. ““Nor is it necessary the circumstantial evidence should rise to such a degree of certainty as to exclude every reasonable conclusion other than that found by the trial court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Neild v. Eldridge