Coker v. Gunter’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Nepstad v. Lambert (1951), Kramer v. KRAMER, ADM'RS (1957)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 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 Standard Oil Company v. Edward Anderson · Denton v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad · Feitig v. Chalkley · Linstead v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · Sykes v. Stone & Webster Engineering 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Gunter had no relation to . . . the work of laying the pipe line. That was Lock Joint’s work. The moving of the dirt was not Gunter’s business, but Lock Joint’s. Gunter let [the driver] and the truck to Lock Joint for whatever hauling and other work Lock Joint wanted done. Gunter retained no direction or control over either while they were about Lock Joint’s work. The power of control and direction was entirely with Lock Joint, which told [the driver] when to work and when to quit, where to go and what to do, and specifically when and how to handle the truck in the movement which . . . resulted in the injury .... The work being done was planned by Lock Joint, and the time, means and method of doing it were under its exclusive control. The injuries suffered . . . were injuries growing out of the business of Lock Joint and a hazard of that business.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ W]Mle selection of the servant, payment of his wages and power of dismissal are elements to be considered on the question of master and servant, they are not essential to that relationship; but the power of control is the most significant element bearing on that question. That principle has been often repeated and consistently adhered to.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T ]he proposition is supported by many decisions, and probably disputed by none, that a servant in the general service of one master may be transferred, under contract or otherwise, to the service of another, so as to become for the time the latter’s servant, with all the legal consequences of that relationship.”
1 later decision 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.