175 Pa. Super. 265 - Rybitski v. Lebowitz’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably 193 Pa. Super. 543 - Henry v. Lit Bros. (1960), Horn v. SANDHILL FURNITURE COMPANY (1956)
27 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 Palko v. Taylor-Mccoy C. C. Co. (Et Al.) · Lints v. Delaware Bibbon Manufacturers, Inc. · 125 Pa. Super. 367 - Freeman v. Salem Reformed Church · 155 Pa. Super. 430 - Krchmar v. Oakland Beach Co. · 164 Pa. Super. 261 - Coleman v. Fischer
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in which the employe was engaged ... by order of the employer, express or implied, and not simply for the convenience of the employe.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Claimant’s duties contemplated that his work was to be performed in the building occupied by his employer. Although his work was such that it did not require his constant application and continuous presence, the general permission, to do whatever he pleased, did not authorize him to leave the premises for his own purposes and still remain in the course of his employment. When he left the premises, selecting his own place to lunch, with the express or implied consent of his employer, his employment ceased and he was then engaged on a personal mission, which had no relation to the business in which his employer was engaged. . . . His status is not affected because he was permitted to select his own lunch hour, nor is it any different from that of any employee who has a fixed time for lunch. That such refreshments are a necessity and, undoubtedly, fit the employee for the performance of his work, cannot be denied; his leaving the premises, however, was a matter that was purely personal to him and bore no relation to the duties which he was required to perform. Although claimant’s hours of employment were from 7 P.M. to 7 A.M., which included a lunch period, it is clear that during such lunch period if off the employer’s premises the employee was not engaged in any mission or errand on behalf of his employer, and consequently not ‘actually engaged in the furtherance of his employer’s business.’ (Emphasis added.)”
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.