Meyer & Meyer v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 1994
24 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 Harbour-Longmire-Pace Co. v. State Industrial Com. · Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Stevenson · Svoboda v. Brooking · Claim of Alterman v. A. I. Namm & Son
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.
““ ‘Where an employer is engaged in a non-hazardous business, and employs some one to perform labor for him of a hazardous nature as an incident to such nonhazardous business, but not in the conduct of same for pecuniary gain, such employee, if injured, does not come within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for subsection 5 of section 13350, O.S. 1931, provides: ‘Employment’ includes employment only in a trade, business or occupation carried on by the employer for pecuniary gain’.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Blakely v. Hamby · Jones v. Smith““ ‘Employment’ includes employment only in a trade, business or occupation carried on by the employer for pecuniary gain.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the case of Svoboda v. ' Brooking, supra, employer was operating a blacksmith shop, and in connection therewith was engaged in the business of buying and selling coal, sand, cement, and crushed rock and other building material, and was operating a concrete mixing machine. Claimant was injured while using the concrete mixing machine. It is clear that the employment in which claimant was engaged at the time of his injury was hazardous and was being operated by employer for pecuniary gain.””
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.