Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 F.2d 15 - Mostyn v. Delaware

Mostyn v. Delaware’s Empirical Analysis

160 F.2d 15 · 1947

Citation profile

103
cited by 103 later decisions
11
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

65 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably Batson-Cook Co. v. Industrial Steel Erectors (1958), Korte v. New York, N. H. & H. R. (1951)

65 federal appellate · 13 state decisions — followed in 11 states

5001947195019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 45 U.S.C. § 1 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)

Relies on American Stevedores, Inc. v. Porello · North Carolina Railroad Company v. James a Zachary · Erie Railroad v. Winfield · Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Otis Elevator Co. · Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Construction Corp.

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

  1. “It seems to us that when a railroad provides shelter or food or both for its employees, and they are using the accommodations so provided to prepare themselves for their work, as to rest and recuperate, they must be regarded as in its ‘employ’.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . If the indemnitee means to throw the loss upon the indemnitor for a fault in which he himself individually shares, he must express that purpose beyond any peradventure of a doubt.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an act is not 'necessarily incident to' or 'an integral part of' employment when it is 'undertaken by an employee for a private purpose and having no causal relationship with his employment.'”
    2 later decisions 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.