Hill v. Staats’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 1956 · most notably Southwest Dairy Products Co. v. Defrates (1939), M. H. Thomas Co. v. Hawthorne (1922)
2 federal appellate · 34 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 International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. Anderson · Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Currie · Grand Fraternity v. Melton · Morier v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. · International & Great Northern Railroad v. Cooper
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * This conclusion is reached with the knowledge that the entire testimony upon the question of the instructions given to the chauffeur came from the lips of defendant and his wife, who both may be said to be interested parties. The testimony of appellee and his wife was positive and unequivocal, nor is there any circumstance disclosed in the record tending to discredit or impeach such testimony. * * * ” (Citing many cases.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The utmost that can ordinarily be said is that a servant is acting within the course of his 'employment when he is engaged in doing, for his master, either the act consciously and specifically directed, or any act which can fairly and reasonably be deemed to be an ordinary and natural incident or attribute of that act or a natural, direct, and logical result of it. If in doing such an act the servant acts negligently, that is negligence within the course of the employment.””
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.