Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 F.1d 992 - Force v. Standard Silk Co.

Force v. Standard Silk Co.’s Empirical Analysis

160 F. 992 · 1908

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
December 1933
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Burgess v. Seligman · Hough v. Railway Co. · Railroad Company v. Stout · Indianapolis and St Louis Railroad Company v. Horst · Union Pac Ry Co v. McDonald

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

  1. ““I can conceive of no more vicious doctrine than to liold that owners of mills, in whicli are machinery and belts such as these were, dangerous to those who should intermeddle with them unless skilled in the business, may employ inexperienced boys and put them to work in the rooms with this machinery, and leave them there at noon with parts of it in motion and the rest unguarded and easily iKv.'vsibio, without warning or instruction as to the danger of Intermeddling with il, or without positive instructions to keep away from it and not intermeddle, without being liable to Lite imputation of negligence in so doing.””
    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.