Bright v. Bragg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 63 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant’s petition expressly alleged the work was directed \ . . by an employee of defendant acting within the scope of his employment. . . .’ His evidence showed it was so directed. It also proved appellant and his co-employees freely followed such directions without complaint and without challenging appellee’s right to exercise such control. The reason for the emphasis given in appellant’s brief to the fact the work was done entirely under the direction and supervision of appellee is obvious. That evidence is very properly stressed, in connection with the damage action, for the purpose of absolving, or tending to absolve, appellant from alleged acts of negligence, in some of which he participated, and of other alleged acts of negligence he observed, without objecting thereto. The fact, however, the work is conceded to have been done under appellee’s direction and control makes it clear appellee was appellant’s special employer with respect to the particular work out of which the injury arose. “In determining the actual relationship of the parties under any employment, the courts will look to all the circumstances involved in the particular case. (Pottorff v. Mining Co., 86 Kan. 774 , 122 Pac. 120 ; Mendel v. Fort Scott Hydraulic Cement Co., supra; Bell v. Hall Lithographing Co., supra.) “The real test whether a person becomes a special employer, of course, is whether he has the right to control and direct the particular activity as a consequence of which the injury occur”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hobelman v. Mel Krebs Construction Co. · Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co.

2. ““. . . Our compensation act does not require an express contract. The conduct of the parties clearly disclosed an agreement of the parties that intervenor’s [the furnace company’s] workmen would at least assist in the unloading and stacking of the metal . . .” (p. 409.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 905 F. Supp. 923 - Corley v. Hardaway Co. · Schafer v. Kansas Soya Products Co.

3. ““Appellee was engaged in the business of ‘Sheet metal repair and installation of heating units.’ For the prosecution thereof he undertook to obtain the sheet metal in question. He contracted with intervenor to furnish it. In the process of complying with the agreement one of intervenor’s workmen was injured. We think such workman would have been entitled to receive compensation from appellee the same as though he had been immediately employed by appellee. (G. S. 1949, 44-503.)” (p. 410. Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bendure v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co.